Submission 1569
26th May 2026
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
By Chris Coombes
Dear Committee,
I’m Chris Coombes. I have previously held an appointment as an Independent Expert Reviewer for the National Disability Insurance Agency, where I provided expert recommendations to the NDIA and participants whose complex matters were before the Tribunal without resolution for prolonged periods.
Completing a Masters in Human Rights Law (Melbourne University) and a Masters in Social and Public Policy (LSE) makes me boring at parties, but less so at submissions.
I’m a nominee for a family member currently on the Scheme, a person who has taught me more about disability than any of the showy things above. In my spare time, I write grouchy articles about the NDIS and train NDS providers with Team DSC. But I write this submission in a personal capacity because, like many of you, I marched for this Scheme. I deeply love and care about people who daily use it. It changes and saves lives. And I believe it can be true that this scheme is, at once, broken and transformative. But for now, I fear this bill breaks it further.
ONE RECOMMENDATION
This bill not pass. Instead, the Minister urgently prioritise working with disabled people, families, Disabled Representative (and Carer) Organisations, providers, and community members to humbly co-design a plan to deliver on reform that re-centres sustainable solutions that truly align with the Convention on the Rights of People with Disability and the Royal Commission. I endorse Women with Disability Australia’s Submission. I echo calls for
Submission 1569
similar, rights-based intersectional impact assessments for this bill and all instruments
hereafter created, including co-assessment on rural, remote and First Nations communities.
And I implore more time for submissions, and exposure drafts. Without which, I fear the
governments approach is inconsistent with its requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (particularly Arts 13, 21, 28, 29).
Restore a whole of person approach to planning
The amendments to s34(1)(aa) to “omit “arising from an impairment”, insert “arising directly from an impairment or impairments”. This relates to the provision that a person must establish, the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising [directly] from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25) [my addition]; Inserting ‘directly’ into an already unworkable s34(1)(aa) provision will have unintended consequences. It adds complexity to the Scheme for participants, report writers, and Delegates. The 10 year review begged for simplicity in budget setting. In social policy, however, it is these proposed provisions that create dual experiences whereby only those with access to tailored information and legal advice achieve decent supports and outcomes. To borrow the 10 year reviews words, This type of inconsistency frequently arises when arbitrary tests of what may be deemed reasonable and necessary (or not) are applied to the costs of every individual support, rather than to the whole budget, based on a participants agreed needs. This adds unnecessary layers of complexity to decision- making within an already complex process. It reduces participant choice and control. By breaking down things to the smallest level, we have lost sight of the big picture and the whole person (p. 23). Within-scheme inequities, and support-by-support nit picking, bothered the authors of the 10 Year Review and the original architects of the Scheme. They should bother those now widening this gap, too. I now break down exactly what this (proposed) test requires of disabled people.
Example
Submission 1569
Meet Dr. Jennifer Haynes, who last week survived a Tribunal decision called Haynes and
CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2026] ARTA 880 (25 May 2026).
Jennifer is a survivor and leading advocate in the sexual survivorship space. They have done immense advocacy for people who dissociate as a result of unfathomable sexual abuse.
Among other modest supports, Dr Haynes was requesting overnight support from the Agency given their many impairments. Dr Haynes was pressed very late in the matter to prove that their need for overnight support ‘arises from’ an NDIS-recognised impairment, which the test from the 2024 reforms. This task is lengthy and beyond what can reasonably be expected of Agency staff, and participants navigating an already bureaucratic scheme.
We now have ample caselaw that outlines how impairment notices that give a broad impairment category - e.g. neurological, sensory, intellectual etc – available mostly to people that joined after 2025 are too simplistic when it comes to the test in s34(1)(aa). The language of conditions or diagnosis are also unhelpful, as are the ‘primary and secondary disability’ lables that the Agency’s shonky system generates. According to General Member Hickey, The Agency (and Tribunal following) must instead drill down to the International Classification of Function (ICF) descriptors, down to the 3-digit global descriptor codes, at minimum. Potentially 4-digit sub-categories could be required. Confused? That’s convenient for a legislative Scheme currently cashing in on complexity. My experience in hundreds of appeals taught me that otherwise-eligible people balk and withdraw from access and planning processes in the face of complexity. This is especially true of those with intellectual and cognitive impairments, First Nations participants with systems-fatigue, and people few informal supports.
Next, the Agency must identify which impairment(s) meet the access criteria at the point of planning. Haynes had no fewer than 53 impairments set out in a table, several of which were contested and many accepted. Let’s call this the quibble before the fight before the battle.
The Agency must then work out whether the support need “arises from” the accepted impairments. The fight before the battle.
The final (?) battle: the bureaucrat must now identify with precision which support needs “directly” arise from the accepted impairments, to borrow the language in the bill. The (report writers and the) Delegate must now close their eyes to the interactions of NDIS
Submission 1569
ineligible impairments and environmental impacts. Let’s not pretend it’s fair to send in an
APS5 to map the entanglement of mind-bodies, an epistemologically uncertain task from
which the brightest medical and legal Calvary in the country retreat.
From here, Dr Haynes is now permitted to approach the second criteria (of at least 8) in s34, reasonable and necessary. Rinse and repeat, for every single support – a pretty cruel exercise to put someone through who you’d agree has survived enough. For every Dr Haynes who fights to the end for their supports or access, there are potentially fifty Mary’s who don’t make it through the ever-rising evidentiary or administrative hoops we’re setting. Hence this change is embedding inequity, not taking stepping us toward ridding it from the scheme like the 10 Year Review Recommended.
Reasonable and necessary.
In addition to meeting the s34(1)(a-f) criteria which have elevated several thresholds, the bill inserts at 34(1)(g) that the Delegate must be satisfied that, “The support is not one that would be more appropriately provided or funded by: (i) another scheme; or (ii) one or more existing government service systems”
The proposed s34(1)(g) invites the street level bureaucrat to make a bigger call than what may be intended. The Explanatory Memorandum references the accident and injury interface. For the avoidance of doubt, there needs to be clarification (e.g. a note) that the Delegate cannot use this power to decide that all requested NDIS supports for a person are more appropriately funded by another service system purely on the basis of a class or characteristic, say, age. Without the grown-ups in parliaments across Australia securing agreements on interfaces, this power instead bestows enormous budgetary and policy discretion upon unelected workers, with no minimum qualifications, in scarcity-driven, busy organisations.
As a ex-employee of the Agency (in their Justice Liaison team), I’d occasionally witness very senior executive staff popping into our team meetings. Their contributions, back in 2019, were predominantly centred on celebrating people for meeting cost-cutting or speed-related KPIs. In this context, APS staff cannot be expected to read the Explanatory Memorannda,
Submission 1569
across multiple amendments, to moderate the powers seemingly at their fingertips, while their
boss appears thirsty to show the Minister savings.
Example:
Meshif met access to the NDIS 8 years ago. He’s now 70. He lives with complex needs
across all domains arising from a spinal cord injury, and mobilises with a wheelchair. Eager
to hit new KPIs, the NDIA Delegate points to the new provision in s34(1)(g) and tells Meshif
that they are building him a $0 plan. They believe that all his support is most appropriately
funded by the Aged care sector even though he still meets the NDIS access criteria. The
Delegate assures Meshif he’ll be okay, that the NDIS can’t be the only lifeboat, and there are
too many fraudsters in the Scheme.
Treatment:
The Bill proposes in section 24(5),
“For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), an impairment or impairments are not permanent, or
likely to be permanent, unless:
(a) the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for the impairment or
impairments (if any);
(b) any other treatment is unlikely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the
impact of, the impairment or impairments; and
(c) the impairment or impairments are likely to persist for the person's lifetime."
Ali France’s told the House of Representatives on the 27th of May 2026, we can no longer
have a two-tier system where “some people with significant disability are in and some people
with significant disability are out”. I agree. To illustrate how we depart from the Member for
Dixon’s invitation, we now explore the Bill’s requirement there are no unexplored treatment will likely “alleviate” or “materially improve” the impacts of a person’s impairment. This sets too high a bar for permanence. The Explanatory Memorandum uses the phrase “noticeably” as a synonym as “materially”, noticeably raising the bar again. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “alleviate” thus, “to make something bad such as pain or problems less severe”. This appears to capture treatments that moderate the advancement of progressive impairments. As noted by our cherished legal academic in unpublished material, this
Submission 1569
threshold is much, much higher than the permanency threshold offered by Linda Reynolds
and the LNP in 2021 amendments. While aimed at removing people with less need from the
Scheme, commentators have rightly noted that this drafting will unintentionally remove
people with substantially reduced functional capacity, including those with permanent and
progressive conditions. These issues will not be resolved by a panel of experts, who we are
assured will be established to arrive at analysis of functional reduction thresholds.
Example
Ayesha lives with advanced Multiple Sclerosis. She is bed-bound, and unable to
independently source or self-administer disease modifying therapies (DMT’s) or
corticosteroids for her MS (access met impairment). These evidence-based treatments exist in
Australia. Her treating team supply evidence to the NDIA that even if she were able to access
them and did undertake them as prescribed, as a best case scenario, these treatments will only
likely improve her ability to do minor activities like lift a cup to her mouth. She’ll remain bed
bound. But on the evidence, lifting a cup is ‘noticeable improvement’, the NDIA bureaucrat
finds. Despite Ayesha being on the NDIS for 7 years and the Agency having details of her
impairments advancing significantly since then, NDIA revokes her access because she no
longer meets the permeance criteria. Are hospitals, aged care and foundational supports ready
for this unethical, cost-shifting exercise?
Note, this provision may also impact people who are unable to participate in the treatment for
religious reasons, or seeking to preserve bodily autonomy or civil liberties (see
electroconvulsive therapy). I have no time to explore the extra requirements on participants to
keep abreast of new treatments, lest they be removed. I also commend Justice and Equity
Centre’s initial submissions on this question to the Committee: they name chemical restraint
and cochlear implants as absurd examples that will likely transpire counter to parliament’s
stated intent. As Dr. Monique Ryan told the House on the 27th May, sometimes access to
treatment depends on NDIS supports.
Reducing budgets:
In 34(A), the provision reads,
(1) For the purposes of ensuring the financial sustainability of the National Disability
Insurance Scheme, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine:
Submission 1569
(a) a percentage (lower than 100%) that is the percentage by which a funding component amount for a specified group of supports is reduced while the determination is in force; and
The unbounded, unreviewable powers to reduce any budget by 99% places too much faith in future Ministers – think about your least favourite politician, and imagine what they could do with this power to the person you love. It is irresponsible and undemocratic to leave potentially billions of dollars in budget savings to one Minister. Worse still, this power does not solve the structural issues named in the 10 year review, which are driving up costs to the Scheme. Band aids on bullet wounds risk Scheme unsustainability, political vulnerability and legitimacy.
Example
Tom’s civic and community participation budget is halved. Tom chooses to use the remaining funds for intensive personal care while shopping for groceries and attending appointments; his mates at pickleball and work miss him. The ATO misses the tax he’d pay if only he could get to work. His mum misses retirement as she recommences informal labour. Most importantly, Tom misses independence.
Ministerial powers:
There are no shortage of powers deferred to category D rules, where the Minister need merely only ‘consult’ with the states. For example, see 34A powers to limit plans below need-levels. As I heard MPs name their daughters, Sarah and Parker, or the young man who does shredding in your office, and I felt nervous for what these cuts would mean for their quality of life.
To add further concern, the bill invites further incorporation by reference, elevating into law documents like the Pricing Arrangements and Price limits, and even excel spreadsheets kept by, and tinkered with, by the Agency – see 45C(11).
Mills and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1410 (18 August 2025), for example, captured the absurd inconsistency relating to e-bikes (permitted on the Agency’s daily-changing FAQ page, yet outlawed by the s10 ministerial instrument). The PAPL and SDA Price Guides hold inconsistencies currently with the s10 rule. This is to say
Submission 1569
nothing of the anti-democratic nature of these instruments. If I want to unelect, campaign
against, or run against a minister(s) responsible for significant cuts to my plan where they
delete a line-item in the SDA Price Guide or PAPL that is critical to my existence, I can. The
CEO is beyond my democratic reach and community accountability.
The enduring s10 lists developed by in 2024 are illustrative of how powers created solely by
a minister - temporary though we were assured these rules were going to be - can create
significant barriers to inclusion and drive up Scheme costs. There is no shortage of delegated
rules and instruments proposed in this bill. If the Prime Ministers is concerned about the npotential lawyer spend on a suggested Royal Commissions into Domestic Violence, you’d
better not tell him about the amount the Agency has spent on barristers squabbling over ndefinitions of ‘standard items’ in the past two years for rules community weren’t adequately
consulted upon – the rules were released a day before their operation. Providing the Minister
(and CEO) with many more powers to unilaterally change the scheme risks more
inconsistency and litigation. Parliamentary and public scrutiny on well drafted provisions is
critical to the efficiency and legitimacy of the Scheme.
Example
In this summary for Team DSC, I discuss Ms Hyde, a woman with vision impairment. She
wants the NDIS to fund an automated gate, so she can open the door to support workers; not
door knockers. Like in many Tribunal matters before her on similar items, the NDIS argued
the gate was ‘standard’. Standard item is a conceptually slippery term that was included in
the 2024 disallowable instrument (and largely implemented outside public scrutiny). Finally,
Ms Hyde ends up before the Guidance and Appeals Panel, where the administrative arm of
government spends big cash money deciding that the gate isn’t standard after all and it is
fund-able. Tally up the barristers pay packets, Agency staff, and Tribunal expenditure -
millions of taxpayer dollars are lost to what might be called integrity leakage.
Renewals
Section 50A proposes unreviewable renewals, which may be subject to some to-be-seen
variations. This means that inadequate statements of participant supports developed, say, four
years ago could theoretically be subjected to rolling unreviewable renewals. People will
repeatedly fall short of meeting the new, higher change of circumstances thresholds. I
Submission 1569
endorse Sam Paior’s submission from the Growing Space and direct the Committee to her
concerns. Participants deserve choice and control.
Example
tom gets a plan at 16. he finishes school, as expected. This is not an unforeseen change so he is ineligible for a change of circumstance per the bill’s proposed threshold. His plan is insufficient for living a dignified post-school life – think work, living with flatmates. His plan is renewed. He loses what would otherwise be the right to internally review the plan that would have been built at his plan reassessment (or end date).
Thank you for reading.
I would like my submission published on your webpage with my full name. At the point of submitting, there are ample incredible submissions. I encourage the Committee to speak with as many people who directly use the Scheme as possible and allow yourselves to be moved by their truth. For this reason, I ask not to participate in hearings.
With love and appreciation for all who work hard to make this Scheme better, Chris Coombes