National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
26 May 2026
Submission Regarding the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
Introduction As a disabled person who relies on the NDIS for personal care, food preparation, transport, physiotherapy, and assistive technology including a wheelchair, I believe this legislation is dangerous and should not proceed in its current form. I am also the mother to two boys, one of whom has level 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), an intellectual disability and a physical disability. This child struggled with his schooling due to social anxiety as part of his ASD and lack of support and left school at age 16. He relies of the NDIS for his social support, personal care and therapies.
These reforms move the NDIS away from dignity, inclusion, choice, independence, and human rights, and toward cost-cutting, compliance, and reduced access to support.
The proposed definition of functional capacity ignores the reality that disabled people rely on equipment, carers, modifications, and accessible environments to safely function, work, parent, and participate in the community. The tightening of permanence and reassessment criteria risks leaving people without essential supports, wheelchairs, home modifications, or therapies when circumstances change or equipment fails.
The Bill also allows broad funding cuts, support caps, pricing controls, automated decision-making, and increased compliance powers with limited transparency or review rights. Disabled people should not lose the ability to shower, leave the house safely, or maintain dignity because the Government decides supports cost too much.
These reforms will also push greater burden back onto carers and families. Prior to the NDIS, my young son had to help me dress and leave the house while my husband, serving full-time in the ADF, experienced severe carer burnout. Reducing supports risks harming children, carers, relationships, employment, education, and family stability.
I am also deeply concerned about restrictions on self-management and non-registered providers. I should have the right to choose who touches my body and who enters my home. These changes risk forcing disabled people to lose trusted supports and accept unsafe or inconsistent care.
The reduction in claim timeframes to 90 days, together with expanded powers to compel information, suspend plans, and remove people from the Scheme, creates fear and places increasing administrative burden on disabled people rather than focusing on actual fraud. The Government’s focus should remain on organised fraud, unethical providers, and systemic failures — not penalising mistakes, administrative delays, or some of Australia’s most vulnerable people.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
The proposed move toward “foundational supports” is also alarming. These supports do not yet properly exist, are undefined, and are already inadequate in many areas. Before the NDIS, I was only funded for three showers per week. Under current Queensland community supports I may receive as little as one hour per week. That is not enough to safely meet basic human needs.
These reforms risk returning disabled Australians to the failed State-based systems the NDIS was created to replace. The False Economy report found the NDIS returns approximately $2.25 to the Australian economy for every $1 invested through improved participation, reduced carer burden, and better long-term outcomes. Cutting essential supports is not only harmful — it is economically short-sighted.
Finally, consultation on legislation of this scale has been rushed and inadequate. Disabled people have not been given genuine opportunity for consultation or co-design despite obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Legislation
-
Section 3 – Objects of the Act and Removal of Core NDIS Principles The proposed Bill shifts the NDIS away from a rights-based, individualised scheme toward one focused on cost reduction and “financial sustainability”. The removal of key section 31 planning principles weakens protections around participant choice, independence, flexibility, inclusion, and individualised planning. The NDIS was founded on dignity, inclusion, choice, independence, and human rights. These principles must remain central to any reform.
-
Functional Capacity Definition – Section 9B The proposed definition of “functional capacity” assesses people without assistance, assistive technology, modifications, or environmental supports. This is the medical model of disability. Disability cannot be separated from equipment, carers, accessible housing, and adaptive environments. These supports are often what allow disabled people to safely shower, work, parent, communicate, and participate in society. Assessing people in isolation from these supports creates an unrealistic picture of disability that does not reflect everyday life. I am also concerned that the threshold for functional impairment will be determined through Rules and advisory processes rather than protected in legislation. This allows Governments to change the “goal posts” without proper parliamentary scrutiny or consultation.
-
Permanence Requirements and “Appropriate Treatments” – Schedule 1 Part 9 The new permanence requirements are deeply concerning. The Bill requires people to undertake all “appropriate treatments” to “alleviate” their condition regardless of accessibility, cost, travel, waiting times, or personal circumstances.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
Living in North Queensland already limits access to specialists and treatment. The Australian health system is filled with inequalities. Access to treatment can be slow. These changes to the NDIS will disproportionately disadvantage regional and remote Australians. As someone with Rheumatoid Arthritis for over 20 years, I know treatment may slow deterioration but does not reverse permanent disability, pain, fatigue, or existing damage. Disabled people should not lose support because treatment provides partial benefit or merely slows deterioration.
-
Whole Person Approach and Section 34(1)(aa) The addition of the word “directly” in section 34(1)(aa) risks excluding supports for interacting or multiple conditions. Many disabled people cannot separate impairments into neat categories. Disability impacts are cumulative and interconnected, particularly for people with complex or multiple conditions.
-
Funding Cuts, Caps, and Ministerial Powers – Sections 34A and 32K The Bill allows broad funding cuts, support caps, pricing controls, and ministerial powers with limited transparency or review rights. To ensure that people with disability have the same right as others to live, take part and be included in the community, article 19 of the CRPD requires countries to take appropriate steps to ensure that people with disability have the opportunity to choose where they live and who they live with, have access to in-home, residential and other community support services to help them be included in the community and prevent them from being isolated. I fought for two years through the Administrative Review Tribunal to obtain supports found to be reasonable and necessary. Blanket funding reductions and caps ignore individual circumstances and undermine those decisions. These changes place me at risk of losing supports that allow me to shower, prepare meals, maintain my home, leave the house in my wheelchair, participate in the community, and work toward returning to employment. No disabled person should lose basic dignity, hygiene, mobility, or community access because the Government decides supports cost too much.
-
Removal and Weakening of Section 34 – Reasonable and Necessary Supports Section 34 has historically been one of the most important protections within the NDIS because it defines the “reasonable and necessary” supports participants are entitled to receive. The proposed reforms significantly weaken these protections by shifting decision-making away from individual need and toward broad ministerial rules, funding caps, pricing controls, budget sustainability, and categories of supports determined outside legislation. This creates serious concern that supports will no longer be assessed primarily on what a disabled person genuinely needs to live safely, independently, and with dignity.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
Instead, supports may increasingly be determined by: • what categories the Government decides to fund, • what is considered affordable, • broad funding caps, • or whether supports fit within restrictive Rules determined outside Parliament. This undermines the original intent of the NDIS as an individualised, rights-based scheme. For many participants, section 34 has been the legal protection allowing them to challenge unsafe or inadequate decisions and obtain supports through review processes and the Tribunal. Weakening section 34 risks removing one of the few meaningful safeguards disabled people have against arbitrary or cost-driven decision-making. I am deeply concerned that the Bill moves away from assessing the actual lived impact of disability and instead creates a system where supports can be restricted through Rules, pricing limits, funding caps, or administrative policy rather than individual need. The NDIS should remain focused on what is reasonable and necessary for a person to live safely, participate in society, maintain dignity, and avoid harm — not simply what is cheapest or easiest for Government to fund.
-
Impact on Families and Carers Reducing supports shifts unsustainable burden back onto carers and families. Before the NDIS, my seven-year-old son helped me dress and leave the house while my husband, serving full-time in the ADF, experienced significant carer burnout. Reducing supports harms children, carers, education, relationships, employment, mental health, and family stability.
-
Mandatory Provider Registration and Restrictions on Self-Management - Section 73B My son and I have successfully self-managed since 2018. Self-management has allowed us to maintain trusted supports, flexibility, continuity of care, and oversight of services. I have experienced poor personal care, inaccurate billing, and charging for services not provided by registered providers. I should have the right to choose who touches my body and who enters my home. With registered providers I often receive intimate personal care from different strangers each visit. This is humiliating, distressing, and unsafe. The proposed expansion of mandatory registration for “higher risk supports” may prevent self- managed participants from using trusted unregistered workers for personal care and daily living supports. This would force me to lose trusted workers I know and feel safe with.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
My physiotherapist, who has treated me for eight years and is professionally registered through AHPRA, does not intend to become NDIS registered. Under these reforms I may lose access to essential long-term care.
-
Claims, Billing, and Administrative Burden – Schedule 2 Part 5 Reducing claim timeframes from two years to 90 days, combined with increased record-keeping and compliance obligations, places significant burden on disabled people and families already managing complex disability. Participants may become personally liable for legitimate support costs where invoices are delayed beyond the 90-day timeframe due to provider or administrative delays outside their control.
-
Exclusion Based on Cause of Disability – Section 34(1)(aa) I am deeply concerned by proposals limiting supports for people whose disability arose through workplace injuries, motor vehicle accidents, or military service. Two people with identical disabilities could receive different supports based solely on how they became disabled. This is inconsistent with Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which guarantees equality before the law and protection from discrimination. Disability support should be based on functional impact and human need — not the cause of disability.
-
Reassessments, Renewals, and Loss of Funding – Sections 48A and 50A Changes to reassessments and renewals risk leaving people without essential supports while waiting for equipment, home modifications, or assistive technology. Five years ago, it took nearly a year from approval to delivery for my wheelchair. Delays already exist due to assessments, approvals, manufacturing, and supplier wait times. Removing unspent funding before equipment is delivered risks leaving disabled people without critical mobility and safety supports.
-
Tightened Reassessment Criteria – Sections 47A, 48A and Related Review Provisions Disability needs change over time. Equipment fails, conditions worsen, children finish school, and support needs evolve. The proposed tightening of reassessment criteria risks trapping participants in outdated plans that no longer meet their needs. It also makes it harder to request a plan reassessment when you have had changes in circumstances such as completing education, a change in your informal support arrangements or your disability deterioriating.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
Delays in reassessment may leave people without safe wheelchairs, pressure care equipment, hoists, communication devices, or supports necessary for education, employment, or community participation.
-
Foundational Supports and Removal from the NDIS I am deeply concerned about proposals to remove disabled people from the NDIS and redirect them to “foundational supports” that do not yet properly exist. There is no evidence these supports will provide the same level of flexibility, individualisation, enforceable rights, or safety as the NDIS. Before the NDIS, I was funded for only three showers per week. Under Queensland Community Support Scheme arrangements, I may receive as little as one hour of support per week. That is nowhere near enough to safely meet basic daily needs such as showering, meals, cleaning, or safely leaving the house. These reforms risk returning disabled Australians to the failed systems the NDIS was created to replace.
-
Automated Decision-Making Powers The Bill expands automated decision-making powers. Supports should not be determined through opaque systems without transparency, accountability, or meaningful human oversight. Disability is complex and cannot be accurately assessed through rigid automated systems relying on incomplete data or assumptions. Given Australia’s Robodebt experience, disabled people should not be subjected to automated processes that risk wrongful suspensions, funding reductions, or loss of support.
-
Participant Contact Requirements, Compulsory Information Powers, and Suspension Risks I am deeply concerned about powers allowing plans to be suspended or participants removed from the NDIS if contact is missed or information requests are not answered within required timeframes. Many disabled people experience hospitalisation, mental health crises, cognitive impairment, executive functioning difficulties, trauma, homelessness, or barriers to communication and technology access. I myself struggle with phone calls and use email and mail to interact with the NDIS. Disabled people should not lose essential supports because they miss a phone call, email, letter, or administrative deadline.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1201
-
Royal Commission Recommendations These reforms are proceeding despite only a very small number of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability being implemented. Instead of prioritising safety, rights, and protection from abuse, the reforms focus on reducing costs, restricting supports, and increasing compliance powers.
-
Consultation and UNCRPD Article 4(3) Consultation on legislation of this scale has been rushed and inadequate. Australia is a party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities including Article 4(3) which requires governments to closely consult with and actively involve people with disability in the development and implementation of legislation and policies and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to people with disability. Two weeks for submissions does not allow meaningful consultation, accessibility, or genuine co- design.
-
Fraud, Compliance, and Integrity Measures Government reform should focus on actual fraud, organised exploitation, and unethical provider behaviour — not penalising mistakes, administrative errors, or vulnerable participants. Evidence presented to the parliamentary committee identified approximately $3.7 billion in “integrity leakage”, but this included inadvertent non-compliance and administrative issues, not just deliberate fraud. The Treasury, ATO, ASIC, and NDIA do not currently have a clear breakdown separating actual fraud from administrative error. Disabled people should not be treated as fraud risks because of paperwork mistakes or delayed invoices. The focus should remain on organised fraud, exploitative providers, fraudulent billing, corruption, and regulatory failures. The False Economy report found the NDIS returns approximately $2.25 to the Australian economy for every $1 invested through improved workforce participation, reduced carer burden, and better long-term outcomes. Reducing essential supports will create greater long-term social and economic costs. I urge the Government to stop these reforms and undertake genuine consultation and co- design with disabled people, families, carers, clinicians, and advocacy organisations before proceeding further.