National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1332
Submission regarding National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I write this submission as a parent, carer and nominee for an adult participant of the NDIS (my twenty-two year old son).
I write regarding my concerns in relation to the proposed Bill amendments, noting the inadequately brief timeframe provided to the general community on provision of submissions - less than one month, which does not allow for comprehensive review and feedback to be provided, thus disadvantaging key stakeholders, many of whom may themselves need support in understanding relevant changes. This timeframe does not allow for the practical, social and individual implications of the proposed changes to be carefully assessed and considered, particularly given the extremely high financial value of the amendments.
Whilst I support the need for a sustainable NDIS; mandatory (risk tiered) provider registration; payment and claim oversight, the proposed Bill amendments prioritise wholesale cost cutting over consideration of the day to day implications, safety, dignity and human rights of people with a disability. They will create risk to participants and their families, including risk to life.
This submission does not capture all of my concerns and all proposed changes. I do not have the capacity to prepare such a submission in the limited consultation period and trust that others will be able to do so. My key concerns regarding the impact of proposed changes on my son and other participants with the proposed amendments are outlined below, in order that the Senate Committee considers them and ensures the Bill amendments are not passed in their current form:
- Ministerial powers to set and reduce funding cohorts - including a 50% reduction in Social and Community Participation and 10% reduction in Activities of Daily Living funding: as outlined in Minister Butlers recent speech to the Press Club (22 April
This new power allows for sweeping changes to support categories without consideration of reasonable and necessary supports, lets the government of the day change the scheme on a day-to-day basis and takes power away from Parliament, which could rightly be considered an overreach. It is unclear as to the rationale Minister Butler has utilised for his above announcements regarding the aforementioned 50% and 10% reductions, apart from cost cutting. The rationale is not transparent and does not consider risk to participants. The power allows for the Minister to reduce support and support categories up to 100% - what is stopping him and future Ministers from continuing cuts without a measured, transparent and evidence based rationale?
My son currently utilises the majority of this funding for part time supported employment which allows him to engage in productive activity and receive a wage, thus contributing to the economy. Secondarily, he utilises this funding to be supported in a volunteering role that is based in our local community, building his workplace skills, with the goal being that this will lead to a permanent productive volunteering role, or increased engagement in paid
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1332
employment. Lastly, he utilises the minority of this funding to assist him attend rehabilitation and medical appointments, engage in exercise physiology and sports training to maintain his physical function and work capacity, engage in self-funded psychology appointments to assist his ability to regulate behaviours in an appropriate manner. He occasionally uses this funding to pick up prescriptions and individual personal care/grocery/food items. He is not able to safely cross roads, manage money, arrange/attend appointments and organise himself appropriately to enable independent community access. He has been assessed by an Occupational Therapist via the Care and Needs Scale (CANS) (an evidence based, validated scale) as Level 7 - “…cannot be left alone and needs support 24 hours per day.” The assessment reported that he “requires support for daily occupational activities, instrumental activities of daily living, social participation and emotional support.” These needs are directly linked to his disability and subsequent impairments.
We, as his parents, provide informal support for all other social and community participation including housing, medical and specialist appointments, accessing sports, exercise, family and friendship/social outings, leisure, grocery shopping, holidays and other tasks that enable him to maintain his physical and psychological health.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare states that Unemployment is a major social determinant of health. It extends far beyond a loss of income, triggering systemic physical, mental, and social challenges—including severe psychological distress, loss of social identity, and strained relationships.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/social-determinants-of-health
The Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health states that “In Australia, people with disability experience poorer health outcomes than people without disability. At population level, disability-related health disparities are caused in large part by avoidable disadvantage, and not primarily by underlying impairment.”
Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health
https://credh.org.au › uploads › 2024/07 › CRD_…
A 50% reduction in social and community participation will result in my son not being able to leave his own home to access the community for work and necessary activities. His health will suffer as he will not be able to manage this proactively and engage in strategies that allow him to manage his health and risk factors. Changes will result in further avoidable disadvantage. This will lead to further economic strain on him and our family.
With the proposed 50% reduction in this funding, he will need in home support for his own safety if he cannot leave home. Will this be funded by the NDIS? Iso, it will need to be at a higher support ratio than some current existing community based supports, which would cost more than the existing supports in place – a false economy. Will the proposed $200 million Inclusive Communities Program be genuinely co-designed with people with disability, be evidence based, genuinely inclusive and guaranteed not to be a delivery model for group segregation? Will the timeframe from design to delivery meet the needs of participants in time to replace relevant supports? Otherwise, I will need to cease employment to look after my son – my own economic
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1332
workforce participation will be reduced to zero. My husband’s employment will be jeopardised, thus impacting his capacity to support our family.
- Tightening of Reasonable and Necessary definition
Whilst there is a need to ensure justifiable spending associated directly from the disability the removal of reference in the legislation to “outcome” results in NDIS potentially only funding assistive technology or support that may well be cheaper, but may not provide the same functional outcome. A real life example of this might be that a person may receive a cheaper item with less functionality, thus resulting in a poorer functional outcome that impacts their safety and independence – thus putting further reliance upon paid support or informal support (noting that some participants have limited to no informal support). Again, a false economy.
The legislation refers to the need for supports to be effective and beneficial and based on evidence such as published literature. Whilst an evidence based approach is reasonable, an evidence base does not exist for all supports and many items of assistive technology. This will lead to further increased and inconsistent poor decision making on the part of NDIS. It will compromise safety and independence as the legislation clearly cost outcomes over individual outcomes.
- Removal of relevant factors associated with plan reassessment and funding; changes to change of circumstances reassessments
I understand the following will be repealed:
31 Principles relating to plans
The preparation, variation, reassessment and replacement of a participant’s plan, and the
management of the funding for supports under a participant’s plan, should so far as reasonably
practicable:
(a) be individualised; and
(b) be directed by the participant; and
(d) strengthen and build capacity of families and carers to support participants who are children; and
(da) if the participant and the participant’s carers agree—strengthen and build the capacity of families and carers to support the participant in adult life; and
(e) consider the availability to the participant of informal support and other support services generally available to any person in the community; and
(g) be underpinned by the right of the participant to exercise control over his or her own life; and
(h) advance the inclusion and participation in the community of the participant with the aim of achieving his or her individual aspirations; and
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1332
(i) maximise the choice and independence of the participant; and
(j) facilitate tailored and flexible responses to the individual goals and needs of the participant;
These areas are essential for participant centred planning and I would argue a fulfilment of human rights.
In relation to change of circumstances, the amendments outline that both the deterioration in function and the change of circumstance need to be permanent. The timeframe for decision making is now extended to 90 days compared to the existing 21 days. How does this benefit a participant in crisis who is experiencing both a deterioration of function and for example the death of a parent or primary carer? How does this apply to a participant who has a relapsing but permanent condition (e.g. MS)? How does this assist those in need due to crisis, rapid deterioration, hospital discharge, carer breakdown, behavioural escalation, housing instability, equipment failure or significant functional decline? I can envisage that these changes will assist the government in achieving their unmet target of a reduction in percentage of plans being reassessed, however, I can see a direct impact with increased hospitalisations and crisis management organisations in the community, for those who required additional care –another false economy.
- Changes to Assessment and Definition of Functional Capacity
“(1) A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to undertake the activity:
• without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and • in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.”
Appropriate planning and funding cannot possibly occur without consideration to the individuals environmental and personal circumstances. What does this mean, for example, to a participant based in a regional and remote area with limited informal support compared to a participant in a metropolitan setting with differences in environment, access to supports, healthcare, allied health etc? My answer is that this results in a blanket approach to funding with potential for inadequate supports and disadvantage to certain cohorts of participants.
It is also unclear exactly how functional capacity will be assessed, with limited transparency around levels of capacity, no transparent access to the methodology of the I-CAN assessment which will be administered by non health professionals, with no access to the participant to their own draft assessment report. This highly standardised assessment approaches reduces clinical discretion valuable clinical assessment and results in over reliance on actuarial or benchmark-style functioning models resulting in cookie cutter funding which will, in certain circumstances, be inadequate. A single standardised tool cannot adequately capture the diversity of presentations across the scheme.
The reported algorithmic approach to funding may result in cost savings to the scheme, but will most certainly result in underfunding and support of individuals leading to unacceptable levels of risk and without consideration to personal safety and daily function. Limited opportunity to
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1332
appeal with the result of any appeal at the ART only triggering reassessment of the individual is a cruel way to restrict participants access to adequate support.
New framework planning rules must be published in draft and subject to genuine consultation before commencement. The support needs assessment framework must provide for input from a participant’s existing treating team, not rely solely on NDIA-commissioned assessments.
In summary, the NDIS Bill amendments will result in an already disadvantaged and vulnerable population not being able to maximise their function, achieve goals relating to activities of daily living and work and will result in poor social and health outcomes resulting from social isolation, reduced community engagement and reduced workforce participation. They will result in increased funding pressures and cost shifts other sytems. This submission is not a rejection of reform as the need to achieve a sustainable NDIS is a goal all parties (particularly participants) should support, however the Minister should consider how this can be achieved with genuine consultation and co-design and without putting lives at risk. I believe savings can be pursued through fraud control, reducing bureaucratic overhead, improving the quality of initial planning decisions, and addressing provider overcharging, not by tightening eligibility and supports for participants with genuine and permanent support needs. As a result, I write to say that the Bill should not pass in its current form.