National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1594

I write to express my serious concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I am deply concerned that the Bill, in its current form, risks undermining the core principles upon which the Scheme was founded: individualised support, choice and control, procedural fairness, and the rights of people with disability to participate fully in community life.

My concerns are outlined below.

Restrictive Definitions of “NDIS Supports”

One of the most concerning aspects of the Bill is the move away from the established “reasonable and necessary” framework toward narrower and more prescriptive definitions of what constitutes an NDIS support. Many submissions to this inquiry have already highlighted concerns that the proposed framework risks excluding legitimate supports that are essential for daily functioning, social participation, independence, and safety. The proposed categories appear overly restrictive and may fail to account for the highly individual nature of disability support needs. Disability does not fit neatly into rigid categories. Supports that may appear “ordinary” to policy- makers can be absolutely essential for a participant to live safely and with dignity. I am particularly concerned that:

• supports may increasingly be excluded because they are considered the responsibility of another system, even where those systems are inaccessible or inadequate;
• participants with psychosocial, fluctuating, chronic, pain-related, or less visible disabilities may be disproportionately disadvantaged;
• the legislation creates uncertainty around future eligibility for supports that participants currently rely on to maintain stability and avoid crisis. The NDIS was intended to be person-centred and flexible. These amendments risk replacing that approach with a rigid and exclusionary framework.

Excessive Reliance on Future Rules and Delegated Legislation

The Bill grants extensive powers for future rules, instruments, and operational guidelines to define critical aspects of the Scheme after the legislation is passed. This creates significant uncertainty because Parliament is effectively being asked to approve broad powers without knowing how those powers will ultimately be used. Important matters such as:

• assessment methodologies,
• budgeting processes,
• definitions of functional capacity,
• eligibility thresholds,
• support classifications,
• and planning mechanisms should be clearly defined in primary legislation rather than deferred to future rules. This level of delegated authority weakens parliamentary oversight and creates legitimate fears that substantial policy changes could occur without adequate scrutiny or consultation.

Concerns About Functional Capacity Assessments and Standardised Planning

I am deeply concerned about the proposed move toward standardised assessments and support needs frameworks. The disability community has repeatedly raised concerns about previous attempts at “independent assessments,” and many of the same concerns appear relevant here. Disability cannot be accurately captured through overly standardised tools, short interviews, or algorithmic processes. People with complex, fluctuating, psychosocial, cognitive, or communica- tion-related disabilities are particularly at risk of being misunderstood or under-assessed. A person’s treating professionals and long-term support providers often have the most accurate understanding of their functional capacity and support needs. Any framework that diminishes the role of existing professional evidence risks causing serious harm.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1594

I am also concerned about:

• insufficient transparency regarding how assessment outcomes will translate into funding decisions;
• the potential use of automated or algorithm-based planning tools;
• lack of safeguards regarding review rights and procedural fairness;
• the risk that participants may lose meaningful opportunities to challenge incorrect decisions. Australia has already seen the devastating consequences of poorly designed automated decision-making systems. The NDIS must not repeat those mistakes.

Erosion of Choice, Control, and Human Rights Principles

The NDIS was founded on principles consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), including autonomy, dignity, participation, and self-determination. Many aspects of this Bill appear to shift the Scheme toward administrative convenience and cost containment rather than participant rights and outcomes. I am concerned that:

• participants may lose meaningful control over their plans and supports;
• people with disability may increasingly be treated as administrative risks rather than citizens with rights;
• the proposed framework prioritises standardisation over individual circumstances. Reforms to the NDIS should strengthen trust between participants and government, not further erode it.

Inadequate Consultation Timeframes

I am also concerned by the extremely limited consultation timeframe associated with this inquiry. People with disability, families, carers, and advocacy organisations often require additional time and support to review complex legislation and prepare meaningful submissions. A short consultation window disproportionately disadvantages those most affected by the proposed changes. Major reforms to a scheme as significant as the NDIS should involve extensive, accessible, and genuinely co-designed consultation processes.

Recommendations

I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend that:

• the Bill not proceed in its current form;
• restrictive definitions of NDIS supports be removed or substantially amended;
• key safeguards and participant rights be written directly into primary legislation;
• participants retain the right to submit and rely upon evidence from their treating professionals;
• any assessment tools or automated systems be independently tested, transparent, reviewable, and subject to strong human oversight;
• review and appeal rights be explicitly protected;
• the consultation process be extended to allow proper community engagement and co-design. The sustainability of the NDIS is important, but sustainability cannot come at the expense of fairness, dignity, safety, and the rights of people with disability.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter. If this proceeds as is it will be worse than robo-debt. We are such a wealthy country and to strip away this safety net is folly of the highest order. Yours sincerely