National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1374
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026.
is a registered NDIS provider in South Australia. For more than 35 years, we have supported people with intellectual disability to build independence, confidence, communication, daily living skills and community connection.
I support a sustainable NDIS. No one wants the Scheme to fail. But sustainability must not be achieved by cutting essential supports, removing appeal rights, or replacing individual judgement with broad rules and automated decisions.
The NDIS must remain fair, personal and safe.
Social and Community Participation
I am very concerned about the proposed reduction to social and community participation funding.
For many people with intellectual disability, this support is not a luxury. It is often the support that gets a person out of the house, builds routine, develops confidence, supports communication, and keeps people connected to others.
When this support is reduced, the cost does not disappear. It often moves to families, carers, providers, hospitals, crisis systems and the wider community.
A blanket reduction risks harming people who already rely on structure, consistency and familiar support to live well.
Do not apply broad cuts to social and community participation funding without individual assessment, written reasons and proper review rights.
Ministerial Power to Reduce Funding — Section 34A
I am concerned about the proposed power for the Minister to reduce funding for groups of supports.
The NDIS was built around individual need. A broad power to reduce supports by category moves the Scheme away from individual planning and towards budget control by rule.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1374
That is a serious shift.
If a participant loses support because of a general rule, they should still have the right to challenge how that rule affects them personally.
Limit section 34A. Any funding reduction power should require consultation, published evidence, Parliamentary scrutiny, safeguards for high-risk participants, and individual review rights.
Reassessments and Review Rights
Life can change quickly. A carer can become unwell. Housing can break down. A participant’s needs can increase. A provider arrangement can fail.
In those situations, waiting up to 90 days for a reassessment decision is too long. For some people, delay can mean real harm.
Review rights are also essential. If the NDIA refuses or delays a reassessment, the participant should have a clear pathway to challenge that decision.
Recommendation: Keep reassessment rights accessible. Create a faster pathway for urgent situations involving safety, housing, carer breakdown, loss of supports or safeguarding concerns.
Automated Decisions and Algorithms
Automation may help with simple administration, but it should not make decisions that reduce or remove a person’s support without human review.
NDIS decisions affect real lives. A wrong decision can mean a person loses the support they rely on to stay safe, connected and independent.
People with intellectual disability, communication barriers or limited advocacy may find it especially hard to challenge an automated decision.
Recommendation: Do not allow fully automated adverse decisions. Any decision that affects funding, access, reassessment or claims should be checked by a real person and remain open to review.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1374
Provider Registration and Payment Oversight
If the Government is serious about fraud and misuse of funds, then all providers should be registered and subject to appropriate audit. Start this NOW. There will be very little damage to the NDIS social license/ goodwill
This would give the NDIA and NDIS Commission proper oversight of who is delivering supports and how funds are being claimed.
It would also help separate genuine fraud from ordinary business errors. Fraud involves dishonesty. Administrative mistakes should be corrected, but they should not be used to inflate claims about fraud across the sector.
There is also a strong case for returning payment claiming to the NDIS portal. A central payment system gives the NDIA better visibility of claims, budgets and provider activity.
I support a sustainable NDIS. But the Scheme must remain human.
The Bill should be amended so that:
-
essential community participation supports are not cut by blanket rule;
-
Ministerial funding powers are limited and reviewable;
-
participants can seek reassessment when circumstances change;
-
automated decisions cannot remove support without human review; and
-
provider oversight is strengthened through registration, audit and central payment visibility.
The NDIS should be financially sustainable, but it must also remain fair, individual and safe.