National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
Senate Inquiry into the NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026
Supplementary Submission
This submission should be read in conjunction with my original submission; [submission no. 135] to the Senate Inquiry into the NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026.
Following further consideration of the Bill, public discussion, and additional information regarding its implementation, I wish to raise several further concerns that I believe warrant careful consideration by the Committee. While I continue to support reforms that strengthen the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I remain deeply concerned that aspects of the Bill move the Scheme away from the principles upon which it was founded— individualisation, choice and control, participant rights, and genuine partnership with people with disability.
Ministerial Powers:
I am increasingly concerned by the significant powers the Bill provides to the Minister to determine support categories, funding arrangements and pricing without sufficient parliamentary oversight or meaningful consultation with the disability community. Recent public statements indicating an intention to substantially reduce funding for Social and Community Participation supports demonstrate why these powers require stronger safeguards. For many participants, Social and Community Participation funding is not discretionary or recreational—it is essential. These supports enable people to: ● participate in their communities ● maintain relationships ● access employment and volunteering ● develop independent living skills ● reduce social isolation ● maintain positive mental health ● participate in education, recreation and civic life. For participants who require support workers to leave their homes, community participation funding is often the only mechanism that enables them to participate in ordinary life. Significant reductions to these supports would disproportionately affect people with high support needs, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, physical disability, acquired brain injury, autism, and those living in regional and rural communities. Major funding changes should never occur through Ministerial discretion alone.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
They should require: ● genuine consultation ● co-design with people with disability ● public transparency ● independent impact assessments ● parliamentary scrutiny.
Mandatory Registration and Self-Directed Supports:
I am also concerned about proposals that would require mandatory registration of providers in circumstances where participants have intentionally chosen to self- direct their supports or where services are delivered solely for one participant through family-managed arrangements.
Many families have invested years in developing safe, high-quality, self-directed support models that reflect the principles of the NDIS. These arrangements often exist because participants have complex support needs that cannot be effectively met through traditional provider models. They provide consistency, flexibility, continuity of care, and trusted relationships that are essential to the participant’s safety, wellbeing, and quality of life.
Families who self-direct supports already undertake significant responsibilities that would ordinarily be performed by a provider. They recruit and train staff, manage employment obligations, oversee compliance with workplace legislation, maintain policies and procedures, coordinate rosters, manage payroll, monitor quality, and ensure supports remain responsive to the participant’s changing needs. In many cases, this work is performed entirely unpaid, alongside caring responsibilities and, for many, paid employment.
Introducing mandatory registration for these self-directed arrangements would impose an additional administrative and financial burden on families who are already contributing substantial unpaid labour to sustain the Scheme. Rather than improving participant outcomes, it risks discouraging self-management and forcing participants into provider models that may be less flexible, less responsive, and less suited to their individual needs.
Importantly, mandatory registration in these circumstances undermines one of the core principles of the NDIS—choice and control. Many participants deliberately choose to self-manage because it allows them to design supports around their own goals, preferences, routines, communication needs, and relationships. Removing or restricting that choice would diminish participant autonomy and move the Scheme away from its original vision of individualised, participant-led supports.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
If additional safeguards are considered necessary, they should be proportionate, risk- based, and developed in consultation with people with disability, families, carers, and self-managing participants. Reforms should strengthen confidence in self- directed supports, not create unnecessary barriers that discourage participants from exercising genuine choice and control.
For these reasons, I urge the Committee to recommend that any provider registration framework preserve the ability of participants to self-manage and maintain safe, family-directed support arrangements without imposing unnecessary regulatory requirements that undermine the flexibility and individualisation the NDIS was designed to achieve.
Standardised Assessment Tools:
I also have significant concerns regarding proposals to increase reliance on standardised assessment tools, algorithms and functional assessment frameworks to determine eligibility and funding. Assessment tools can assist in gathering information but should never replace comprehensive individual assessment. No algorithm can properly understand: ● the interaction between multiple disabilities ● fluctuating conditions ● communication barriers ● psychosocial factors ● family circumstances ● environmental influences ● cultural considerations ● participant goals ● quality of life. Two people with exactly the same diagnosis can require vastly different supports. Funding should never be determined primarily through scoring systems or predetermined funding bands. The NDIS was specifically designed to move Australia away from the previous disability system that categorised people according to diagnosis rather than recognising each person as an individual. Returning to standardised assessment models risks recreating the very system the NDIS was established to replace. Assessment processes must remain person-centred, evidence-based and informed by appropriately qualified professionals together with the participant’s own goals and lived experience.
Suspension of Plans for “Non-Contactability”:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
I remain deeply concerned about provisions allowing participant plans to be suspended if a participant is considered “not contactable.” The Bill provides insufficient clarity regarding: ● what constitutes reasonable attempts to contact ● how many attempts must be made ● what communication methods must be used ● how nominees and guardians will be contacted ● who determines whether sufficient attempts have occurred ● what oversight exists before suspension. Many participants experience circumstances that make communication difficult, including hospitalisation, mental ill health, homelessness, family crises, cognitive impairment, communication disability, natural disasters, or domestic violence. Many also rely on guardians, nominees or family members to communicate on their behalf. The purpose of the NDIS should be to identify why a participant cannot be contacted and ensure their wellbeing—not suspend the supports they rely upon. Before any suspension occurs, the NDIA should be required to demonstrate that every reasonable avenue has been exhausted and that all relevant representatives have been contacted. Strong internal and external review rights should also apply. Review Rights Review rights remain one of the most important safeguards within the NDIS. People with disability should not have to undertake lengthy review processes simply to retain supports supported by clear evidence. However, when incorrect decisions occur, participants must retain the right to independent review. Removing or weakening review pathways removes accountability and places people with disability and their families at significant risk.
Appropriate Treatment:
I still remain concerned about the proposed concept of “appropriate treatment.” Any assessment of treatment should be: ● evidence-based ● person-centred ● undertaken by appropriately qualified professionals ● mindful of functional outcomes rather than diagnosis alone. Participants should never lose disability supports because treatment is unavailable due to cost, geography, workforce shortages or lengthy waiting lists. The purpose of disability support is to maximise participation and quality of life—not to require participants to pursue treatments that may be inaccessible or inappropriate for their individual circumstances.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
I am concerned by evidence provided during the public hearings that the Department stated it cannot direct a person to undertake treatment, nor can it determine or advise what constitutes an appropriate treatment for an individual.
While I agree that treatment decisions should remain between a person and their treating health professionals, this evidence raises significant concerns about how the proposed eligibility requirements will be implemented in practice. If the Department is not able to determine what constitutes appropriate treatment, there is a real risk that NDIA staff assessing eligibility will make inconsistent or subjective decisions about whether a participant has undertaken “appropriate” treatment or exhausted available interventions.
This creates uncertainty for participants, particularly those with complex, lifelong or fluctuating disabilities where there may be multiple treatment options, differing clinical opinions, or circumstances where further treatment is unlikely to improve functional capacity. It also risks placing participants in the position of having to justify why they have not pursued certain treatments, despite those decisions being made in consultation with qualified health professionals.
Without clear legislative safeguards and nationally consistent guidance, this requirement may result in inequitable decision-making, increased disputes, and participants being found ineligible based on differing interpretations by individual assessors rather than objective evidence. Decisions about what treatment is clinically appropriate should remain the responsibility of treating practitioners, not eligibility assessors.
Pricing and Workforce Sustainability:
Pricing decisions should remain independent of political influence. Any pricing framework should properly reflect: ● Fair Work obligations ● award wages ● superannuation ● insurance ● workforce shortages ● rural and remote service delivery ● compliance costs ● training requirements ● quality and safeguarding obligations. Reducing pricing below sustainable levels risks destabilising the disability workforce and ultimately reducing participant safety and quality of care. Consultation and Co-design
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
Perhaps my greatest concern is that many of these proposed changes appear to move away from the co-design principles that have long underpinned disability reform in Australia. Meaningful reform cannot occur without genuine engagement with: ● people with disability ● families ● carers ● advocates ● providers ● representative organisations.
The disability community must not simply be informed after decisions have been made—it must be actively involved in shaping those decisions.
Additional Recommendations:
In addition to the recommendations contained within my original submission, I respectfully request that the Committee recommend amendments to:
-
Limit Ministerial powers to make significant funding changes without
parliamentary oversight and consultation. 2. Ensure Social and Community Participation funding cannot be significantly reduced without independent review and public consultation. 3. Prohibit the use of standardised assessment tools or algorithms as the primary determinant of eligibility or funding. 4. Preserve person-centred planning based on professional evidence, functional impact and participant goals. 5. Strengthen safeguards around suspension of plans due to “non- contactability”. 6. Preserve independent review rights. 7. Ensure pricing decisions are made independently of Government. 8. Require genuine co-design and consultation before implementing major reforms. 9. Ensure that any provider registration framework preserves self- management and self-directed support arrangements by exempting, or providing a proportionate pathway for, participant-managed supports where appropriate, so that families are not subjected to unnecessary regulatory burdens that undermine choice, control, and individualised support.
Closing:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 135 - Supplementary Submission
The NDIS represents one of Australia’s most significant social reforms because it recognises that people with disability are individuals, not categories. Any reforms should strengthen that principle—not weaken it. I respectfully ask the Committee to ensure that the future of the NDIS remains grounded in choice and control, individualised supports, transparency, accountability, and the rights of people with disability to live safe, meaningful and connected lives.