National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
Senate Inquiry Submission – NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Supplementary Submission
In addition to the key concerns raised in my previous submission, I also request that the Committee recommend that:
• Remove or significantly limit Ministerial powers to unilaterally reduce funding categories, supports, or service types without consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. • Ensure that standardised assessment tools are not used as the primary determinant of NDIS eligibility, funding levels, or support needs, and that all decisions continue to be based on individual circumstances, professional evidence, functional impact, participant goals, and person-centred assessment processes.
My reasons for these requests are outlined below.
- Ministerial Powers to Reduce Funding Categories
One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed reforms is the significant power provided to the Minister to make decisions affecting support categories and funding arrangements.
Of particular concern are public statements indicating an intention to reduce funding for certain support categories, including Social and Community Participation supports, by as much as 50%.
Social and Community Participation is not a luxury.
For many participants, these supports provide access to:
• Community inclusion • Employment pathways • Volunteering opportunities • Skill development • Social connection • Recreation and leisure activities • Mental health supports • Reduced isolation and loneliness
For people who require support workers to access the community, these supports are often the only means by which they can participate in everyday life.
Reducing funding for these supports would disproportionately impact:
• People with high support needs • People living alone • People with intellectual disability • People with psychosocial disability
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
• People in regional and rural communities • People with physical disability
There is significant concern that the Bill may allow substantial funding changes to occur through Ministerial discretion without:
• Meaningful consultation • Independent review • Parliamentary oversight • Co-design with people with disability
Such powers are inconsistent with the principles of transparency, accountability, and participant- centred decision-making that underpin the NDIS.
Any major funding changes should require:
• Genuine consultation • Public transparency • Independent impact assessments • Parliamentary scrutiny
- Concerns About Standardised Assessment Tools
I am deeply concerned about any proposal that would increase reliance on standardised assessment tools, scoring systems, algorithms, or functional assessment frameworks to determine NDIS eligibility, funding levels, or support needs.
While assessment tools may have a role in gathering information, they should never replace individualised assessment, professional judgement, or a genuine understanding of a person’s unique circumstances, goals, and support requirements.
People with disability are not defined solely by a diagnosis, a score, or a category. Two people with the same disability can have vastly different functional impacts, support needs, living arrangements, health conditions, communication methods, informal support networks, personal goals, and risks.
Standardised assessment tools are inherently limited in their ability to capture the complexity of a person’s life. They often fail to consider factors such as:
• The interaction between multiple disabilities and health conditions • Communication barriers • Behavioural and psychosocial support needs • Family and caring arrangements • Environmental factors • Cultural considerations
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
• The cumulative impact of disability on daily living • Individual goals, aspirations, strengths, and preferences
I am particularly concerned about any system that relies on algorithms, scoring mechanisms, or predetermined funding levels linked to assessment outcomes. Such approaches risk reducing people to numbers rather than recognising them as individuals.
The NDIS was created because previous disability systems often placed people into broad categories and determined supports based on diagnosis rather than individual circumstances. Those systems failed many people with disability because they adopted a one-size-fits-all approach that ignored the diversity of people’s lives and needs.
The introduction of standardised assessment tools as a primary determinant of eligibility or funding risks returning to the very system the NDIS was designed to replace.
Funding decisions should continue to be based on comprehensive evidence, including reports from appropriately qualified professionals, lived experience, individual goals, functional impact, environmental circumstances, and the participant’s own voice wherever possible.
Assessment processes must remain person-centred, flexible, and responsive to individual circumstances. No participant should have their support needs determined primarily by an algorithm, assessment score, or standardised formula.
The strength of the NDIS has always been its commitment to individualised supports. Any reforms that move towards standardised funding models risk undermining choice, control, equity, and the ability of people with disability to receive supports that genuinely reflect their needs and circumstances.
Conclusion
The NDIS was created to provide individualised supports and enable people with disability to live ordinary lives with dignity, safety, inclusion, and choice.
Many stakeholders support reforms that improve sustainability, accountability, and integrity. However, reforms must not undermine participant rights, reduce safeguards, weaken review mechanisms, remove choice and control, or place vulnerable people at greater risk.
The disability community has consistently supported genuine consultation and co-design. Any significant reforms should be developed in partnership with people with disability, families, carers, advocates, providers, and representative organisations.
The success of the NDIS should continue to be measured not only by financial sustainability, but by its ability to improve the lives, independence, participation, safety, and wellbeing of Australians with disability.