Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee: Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submitted by: Dr Darryl Sellwood Location: Underdale, South Australia 5032 Date: May 2026 Submission type: Personal submission - participant with lived experience

“The NDIS had greatly assisted me to have a more meaningful and productive life. This Bill threatens to take it away”

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Personal Background

2. Overview and Key Concerns with the Bill

3. Detailed Analysis of Key Provisions

o 3.1 Schedule 1, Part 1: Defining Functional Capacity o 3.2 Schedule 1, Part 2: Limiting Unscheduled Plan Reassessments o 3.3 Schedule 1, Part 4: Support Determinations (Ministerial Funding Cuts) o 3.4 Schedule 1, Part 5: Plan Renewal Without Individual Assessment o 3.5 Schedule 1, Part 6: Reasonable and Necessary Supports - Sustainability Test o 3.6 Schedule 1, Part 7: Plan Suspension for Participants Who Are “Not Contactable” o 3.7 Schedule 1, Part 8: Tightening the Meaning of Permanence o 3.8 Schedule 1, Part 9: Eligibility Based on Access to Other Services o 3.9 Schedule 2, Part 2: Civil Penalties and Regulatory Powers o 3.10 Schedule 3, Parts 1 and 2: Governance - Pricing and Automation 4. Recommendations

5. Conclusion

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 2 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND PERSONAL BACKGROUND

My name is Dr Darryl Sellwood. I am a disability researcher, Chairperson of AGOSCI Inc - Australia’s national peak body for people with communication disabilities - a small business owner, a PhD graduate, and a proud, active member of my community in the western suburbs of Adelaide. I am also a person with severe physical and communication disabilities who relies on the NDIS every single day to live independently, to work, and to participate fully in Australian life.

I make this submission not as an abstract policy exercise, but because this Bill directly threatens the supports that allow me to get out of bed in the morning, to do my job, and to contribute to society. I am writing this because I believe the Committee needs to hear from people like me - not just bureaucrats and policy analysts, but people whose lives will be materially damaged if this legislation passes as drafted.

Who I Am

I have a severe physical disability and a significant communication disability. I use a wheelchair. I use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technology to speak. I require daily support from support workers for personal care and domestic tasks. Without those workers, without my assistive technology, without the therapy that maintains my functional capacity, I cannot live independently. Full stop.

I live alone in Underdale with my kelpie, Ziva. My home has been modified to meet my needs and is equipped with a safety alarm system. My NDIS plan - which runs from December 2025 to December 2030 - provides funding for approximately 74 hours a week including Core Flexible supports, Improved Daily Living (therapy), Support Coordination, Assistive Technology, Transport, and Specialised Disability Accommodation eligibility. This is not an extravagant plan. This is what it costs to support a person with high and complex disability needs to live a full, contributing life in 21st- century Australia.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 3 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

What the NDIS Has Made Possible

Before the NDIS, people with disabilities like mine were entirely dependent on the goodwill of family, the patchwork of state services, or - more often - institutions. The scheme changed everything. It allowed me to:

• Complete my PhD at Flinders University, where I researched the lived experience of people with physical and communication disabilities in developing romantic and sexual relationships, and to be awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Doctoral Thesis Excellence.

• Work as a Research Fellow at Flinders University, contributing to research that helps children with developmental disabilities improve their literacy skills.

• Completed a three-year contract working part time as a Scholarly Fellow at Flinders University, as part of a panel reviewing curriculum in the Disability Studies discipline.

• Contributed in the development of curriculum for the university’s new Master of Speech Pathology program at Deakin University.

• Build my own small business - Dr Dazz Coffee - pursuing self-employment and entrepreneurship on my own terms.

• Participate in my community: attending live music, catching up with friends and family, popping down to the hardware store, choosing where I go and when I go there.

• Purchase a second-hand accessible vehicle - my Renault Kangoo, Robby - and gain independence in my daily travel.

Most of these achievements would have been almost impossible before the NDIS. Every single item on that list depends on the supports my plan provides. The scheme’s stated purpose - to support people with significant disability to live ordinary lives - is not rhetoric for me. It is my lived reality.

Why I Am Making This Submission

I make this submission because this Bill, in its current form, does not threaten what I have already built - those achievements are mine. But it does threaten my future ambitions, my ongoing independence, and the opportunities I am still working towards. It would give a Minister the power to cut my funding by regulation. It would make it harder for me to request a reassessment if my needs change. It would allow my plan to be automatically renewed year after year without anyone checking whether my needs are still being met. And it would allow my plan to be suspended if the NDIA decides

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 4 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

I am “not contactable” - even if the reason I haven’t responded is that their communication with me was inaccessible.

I am writing this because I have the skills and the platform to write it. Tens of thousands of Australians with disability do not. I am writing for them too.

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW AND KEY CONCERNS WITH THE BILL

What the Government Claims This Bill Does

The Government has framed the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 as necessary reform to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, address fraud and waste, and streamline planning processes. These are legitimate policy goals. I support genuine reform of the NDIS. The scheme has real governance problems. The NDIA has serious administrative failures. Fraud by unscrupulous providers is real and must be addressed aggressively.

I want to be clear: I am not opposed to reform. I am opposed to this Bill because it is not the reform the Government is selling to the public. It is being marketed as a response to fraud and a way to “secure” the scheme, but almost none of its provisions actually target fraudulent providers or strengthen safety for participants. Instead, it systematically strips rights and safeguards from participants and shifts financial risk onto people with disability, so that the Government can reduce NDIS spending while claiming to be “fixing” the scheme.

It does this to the very people the NDIS was created to protect.

What This Bill Actually Does

At its core, this Bill does the following:

It shifts financial risk from the government to participants. Rather than fixing the NDIA’s governance failures or aggressively pursuing fraudulent providers, the Bill cuts participants’ funding, restricts access to reassessments, and introduces sustainability tests that override individual needs assessments. The financial risk of running an expensive scheme is offloaded onto people with disability - the people least able to bear it.

It concentrates power in ministerial hands. Across multiple schedules, the Bill grants Ministers sweeping new powers to cut funding, restrict supports, automate decisions, and control pricing - all by

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 5 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

legislative instrument or rule, outside the detailed scrutiny of parliament and without individual participant assessment. This is a profound shift in the balance of power away from participants and towards bureaucratic and political control.

It undermines the needs-based foundation of the scheme. The NDIS was designed as a needs-based entitlement scheme - you receive the supports you need, determined through individual assessment. This Bill inserts financial sustainability tests, equity considerations, and ministerial funding determinations into the heart of that framework, transforming the NDIS from a rights-based entitlement into a budget-capped programme.

It creates new compliance burdens and penalties for participants. Rather than focusing enforcement on fraudulent providers, the Bill introduces civil penalties for participants, new information-gathering powers, and suspension mechanisms for people deemed “not contactable.” These measures treat participants as suspects rather than rights-holders.

It automates high-stakes decisions without adequate safeguards. The Bill allows the NDIA to automate administrative decisions - including decisions that affect participants’ funding and plan status - without requiring mandatory human review or meaningful transparency.

This is not a fraud bill

The public narrative around this Bill suggests it is about “cracking down on fraud” and “securing the NDIS for future generations”. That is not what the text of the Bill does. There are some fraud-related provisions, but they are a small part of a much larger package that overwhelmingly targets participants, not criminals. It is far easier for this Government to be seen to be “tough” on disability spending than to properly fund the NDIA, aggressively prosecute provider fraud, and invest in genuinely accessible systems. This Bill uses the language of fraud and sustainability to justify measures that mainly make life harder, poorer and more precarious for people with disability.

A Personal Note on Consultation

I am a disability researcher. I understand the policy process. I know that genuine co-design takes time and produces better outcomes. This Bill was not developed through genuine co-design. The disability community has not been meaningfully consulted about provisions that will fundamentally alter their rights. Disability representative organisations have raised serious concerns that have not been addressed. This is not how you design policy that affects the most vulnerable people in Australia.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 6 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

SECTION 3: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF KEY PROVISIONS

3.1 Schedule 1, Part 1: Defining Functional Capacity (Section 9B)

What the Bill does: This Part introduces a statutory definition of “functional capacity” as a person’s ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology, or modifications, and in a context that excludes the impact of environmental and personal circumstances. NDIS rules may further specify methods, criteria, classifications and thresholds for assessing functional capacity.

Why this concerns me: This definition is fundamentally problematic for people with physical and communication disabilities like me. My functional capacity without my assistive technology and without support workers is effectively zero for most daily activities. That is not a measure of my actual needs - it is a measure of my disability in a vacuum, stripped of the very context that makes a needs assessment meaningful.

Assessing my functional capacity by removing my communication device and my assistive technology eye gaze technology, I used to access my computer, from the equation tells you nothing useful about what supports I need to live in the real world. It tells you only that without these devices, I cannot communicate – I cannot do meaningful paid work. Taking away my supports which my support workers provides – I cannot eat, clean myself, toilet myself or take part in community life. That is not an insight. That is a mechanism for reducing funding.

I am also deeply concerned that NDIS rules will specify thresholds and classifications for functional capacity assessments - but those rules have not been released for public consultation. The Committee is being asked to legislate a framework whose practical operation has been hidden from the people it will affect most.

This provision will have a disproportionate impact on:

• People with complex communication disabilities, whose functional capacity in “decontextualised” assessments will be dramatically lower than their real-world capability with appropriate supports.

• People with progressive or episodic conditions, whose functional capacity fluctuates and cannot be accurately captured by a single point-in-time assessment.

• Children with developmental disabilities, whose functional capacity is not yet established and for whom early intervention is designed precisely to build capacity over time.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 7 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

What should happen instead: Functional capacity should be assessed in context - including the context of appropriate supports - and should reflect what a person can achieve with the right assistance, not what they cannot do without it. Assessment tools must be developed and published for genuine consultation before being legislated. The Committee should not proceed with this provision until those tools are transparent.

3.2 Schedule 1, Part 2: Limiting Unscheduled Plan Reassessments (Section 48A)

What the Bill does: This Part replaces the current reassessment framework with a new Section 48A that restricts when a participant can request an unscheduled reassessment of their plan. The key threshold is that changes must be “significant and ongoing” - and the change in functional capacity must also be “significant and ongoing” and result in a “substantial reduction” in the ability to perform daily activities.

Critically, this Part removes the ability of third parties - including support coordinators and advocates

• to request reassessments on behalf of participants. Only participants themselves, their plan nominees, or (for children) parents can request a reassessment.

Why this concerns me: This provision effectively removes a critical safety net for participants who, because of their disability, are not always able to self-advocate. For people with communication disabilities like me, the ability to have a trusted support coordinator request a reassessment is not a bureaucratic convenience - it is a fundamental safeguard. My support coordinator can observe changes in my functional capacity and my circumstances that I may struggle to articulate through formal NDIA channels. Removing their ability to initiate that process leaves me more exposed, not more secure.

The “significant and ongoing” threshold is also far too high. Disability does not always manifest in ways that are clearly “significant and ongoing.” Episodic conditions, acute crises, and gradual deterioration may not meet this threshold even when a participant’s needs have genuinely changed. Locking participants into plans that no longer meet their needs - because the change wasn’t dramatic enough - is not reform. It is cost control.

The 90-day response timeline (replacing the previous 21-day timeline) is also deeply concerning. Ninety days is a very long time to wait when your supports are inadequate.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 8 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

What should happen instead: The reassessment provisions should be amended to:

• Allow support coordinators and advocates to request reassessments on behalf of participants.

• Replace “significant AND ongoing” with “significant OR ongoing” to capture acute crises.

• Restore the 21-day response timeline for urgent reassessments.

• Ensure protections for people with communication disabilities throughout the reassessment process.

3.2A Section 33(2EA): Ministerial Power to Cap Supports by Cohort, and the Sub-Instrument Problem

What the Bill does: Section 33(2EA) gives the Minister power to cap any support, or any class of supports, for any cohort of participants by legislative instrument. This is distinct from the Section 34A power to cut funding across the board. This provision allows targeted, group-specific caps: the Minister can set a maximum number of therapy hours, a maximum AT funding amount, or a maximum ratio of support workers to participants, for any defined group of people, including people with communication disabilities, people who use AAC, or people with high physical support needs.

Critically, the cap values themselves do not need to sit in the legislative instrument. They can be placed in referenced documents such as price guides, determination schedules, or administrative instruments that sit outside the Act entirely. Those documents can be updated by the Agency without any Parliamentary approval and without any disallowance process. There is no requirement to notify participants when a cap value changes. Your entitlement can be reduced silently, between plan renewals, with no debate and no scrutiny.

Why this concerns me: I rely on speech pathology, physiotherapy, psychology, and other allied health therapies. These are not luxury supports. Speech pathology maintains my ability to use my AAC technology effectively. Physiotherapy maintains my physical function and prevents secondary injury. Psychology supports my mental health as a direct consequence of the ongoing psychological demands of living with severe physical and communication disabilities, including the cumulative impact of inaccessible systems, repeated barriers to participation, and the sustained effort required to self-advocate within institutions like the NDIA itself. A ministerial cap on therapy hours for people with communication disabilities, or

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 9 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

for people with high physical support needs, would cut across every one of these supports simultaneously.

I use AAC technology to communicate. My communication device is not optional equipment. It is my voice. A cap on AAC device funding or AAC-related AT maintenance for people who use AAC, applied by cohort and without individual assessment, would directly limit my ability to replace or upgrade my device when needed. Communication technology does not last forever. It breaks down. It becomes obsolete. A cohort cap set in a referenced document that the Agency can update without Parliamentary approval means I could find that the funding available for my next device has been silently reduced, with no notice, no debate, and no recourse until my next plan renewal.

My support worker hours are the foundation of my independence. Without them I cannot get out of bed, cannot prepare food, cannot manage my personal care, and cannot go to work. A cap on personal care hours for participants with high physical support needs, applied by cohort, would cut those hours without any assessment of whether my individual needs had changed. It would apply to me because of the category I fall into, not because of anything the NDIA had determined about me specifically.

The most alarming aspect of this provision is not any single cap. It is the mechanism by which caps can be changed. When cap values sit in referenced documents outside the legislative instrument, they can be updated by the Agency at any time, without Parliamentary approval, without a disallowance period, and without any obligation to inform participants. This destroys all certainty in my supports. Certainty is not a luxury. It is the foundation on which I plan my life, my work, my therapy programmes, and my care arrangements. If I cannot rely on my funding remaining stable between plan renewals, I cannot make commitments. I cannot engage providers. I cannot build towards goals. The NDIS promised individualised, stable, needs-based funding. This provision converts that promise into a moving target that the Agency can shift whenever it chooses, with no accountability to the people affected.

What should happen instead: Section 33(2EA) should be removed entirely. If cohort-level caps are to exist at all, they must be set in primary legislation, subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, with a minimum notice period of 12 months before any cap change takes effect. Cap values must never be delegated to sub- instruments that can be updated without Parliamentary approval. Participants must be individually notified of any cap change that affects their current plan, with a right to seek review.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 10 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

3.3 Schedule 1, Part 4: Support Determinations - Ministerial Power to Cut Funding (Section 34A)

What the Bill does: This Part inserts Section 34A into the NDIS Act, giving the Minister the power to make a legislative instrument reducing the funding component amounts in participants’ plans across specified groups of supports. The determination applies to plans coming into effect after the instrument commences. The Bill explicitly provides that this power operates even if the result is that a participant’s funded supports are less than the total cost of those supports.

Why this concerns me: This is the most dangerous provision in the Bill. It gives a Minister - any Minister, in any future government - the power to cut the funding of everyone in the NDIS for a particular support category, by any percentage, at any time, simply by making a regulation. No individual assessment. No review of needs. No parliamentary scrutiny beyond the disallowance period. Just a regulation, and everyone’s funding in that category is cut.

This is not a hypothetical concern. The Government has already signalled cuts to capacity-building supports (therapy). A cut to my Improved Daily Living funding - my therapy budget - would reduce my access to the occupational therapy, speech pathology, and other allied health supports that maintain my functional capacity. That is not a minor inconvenience. That is a direct impact on my ability to maintain the skills I need to work, to communicate, and to live independently.

The extraordinary nature of this power cannot be overstated. The NDIS was designed specifically to remove disability funding from the political cycle - to guarantee that people with significant disability would receive the supports they need regardless of budget pressures. This provision puts that political pressure directly back into participants’ plans.

Note 1 to Section 34A makes it explicit: “the funding provided under a participant’s plan for a reasonable and necessary support is less than the total cost of the support.” The Government is openly legislating the power to underfund supports that have already been assessed as reasonable and necessary. This is not accountability. This is abandonment.

What should happen instead: Section 34A should be removed from the Bill entirely. If the Government genuinely needs a mechanism to manage scheme costs, it should do so through improved NDIA governance, provider

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 11 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

fraud prosecution, and transparent actuarial processes - not ministerial regulation that cuts individual participants’ funding without individual assessment.

3.3A Section 34(1)(aa): Supports Must “Directly” Arise from Eligible Impairments

What the Bill does: This Part inserts a new paragraph (aa) into Section 34(1), requiring that a support be “directly” related to a participant’s NDIS-eligible impairment before it can be funded as reasonable and necessary. This single word - “directly” - fundamentally narrows what the NDIA is permitted to fund, and it will be used to strip supports that arise from the interaction between a person’s disability and their environment, their secondary conditions, or the cumulative effect of living with significant disability every day.

Why this concerns me: My disability does not operate in a clean, direct line from impairment to support need. It operates as a complex, interconnected system - and this provision will be used to unpick that system support by support.

I have a severe physical disability that consumes an enormous amount of physical energy. Every activity of daily living - transferring, communicating, navigating my environment - costs me significantly more energy than it would cost a non-disabled person. The support worker hours that help me manage my energy across the day, pace my activities, and avoid exhaustion do not arise “directly” from a single impairment. They arise from the cumulative consequence of living in a body that works much harder than most just to get through an ordinary day. Under this provision, the NDIA has a new tool to argue that fatigue management supports are “indirect” - and therefore not fundable.

Living with a severe physical disability for my entire life has produced secondary health conditions. Supports that address those secondary conditions - pain, skin integrity, respiratory management, digestive health - could now be targeted as arising “indirectly” from my primary impairment rather than from the impairment itself. The NDIA does not need to prove this definitively. It only needs to raise the argument. The burden then shifts to me to disprove it - using AAC technology, without a lawyer, against a Commonwealth agency with unlimited legal resources.

My physical disability and my communication disability interact. Some of my most essential supports are needed precisely because of the combination - the way my physical limitations affect my ability to use my communication device, the way my communication disability affects my ability to direct my

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 12 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

own personal care. The NDIA could argue that supports arising from the interaction of two impairments do not “directly” arise from either one alone, and are therefore not fundable under the new test.

I also have supports that address my emotional wellbeing and mental health. I do not have a formally diagnosed mental health condition that would independently qualify me for NDIS access. But living with severe physical and communication disabilities - navigating a world not built for people like me, managing daily barriers that most Australians never encounter - has real and ongoing effects on my mental health and emotional wellbeing. Those effects are not “directly” caused by my physical impairment in any simple biomedical sense. They are caused by the experience of disability in an inaccessible world. Under this provision, supports that help me maintain my mental health and emotional resilience could be stripped.

Finally, I am a person who works, runs a business, attends live music, visits friends, and participates fully in my community. I do this with support. The NDIA could argue that supports enabling community participation arise from my lifestyle choices - not “directly” from my impairment - even though every single one of those activities requires support precisely because of my impairment. Without my disability, I would not need a support worker to attend a concert. The “directly” test creates a mechanism to reframe disability supports as lifestyle supports and strip them accordingly.

What should happen instead: The word “directly” must be removed from Section 34(1)(aa). The reasonable and necessary test must continue to encompass supports that arise from the interaction between a person’s impairments, their secondary conditions, their environment, and the cumulative lived experience of disability. Narrow biomedical causation is not an appropriate test for disability support needs.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 13 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

3.4 Schedule 1, Part 5: Plan Renewal Without Individual Assessment (Section 50A)

What the Bill does: This Part introduces automatic plan renewal. When a participant’s plan reaches its end date, it is automatically renewed for 12 months with the same text as the original plan, with the exception of one-off funding items. The new plan comes into effect without a new statement of participant supports being prepared with the participant, and without any reviewable decision being made.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 14 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Why this concerns me: Automatic renewal sounds efficient, but for many participants it is a serious harm. If my needs change

• if my condition deteriorates, if my circumstances change, if a therapist identifies new goals - an automatic renewal locks me into the previous year’s plan with no mechanism for individual review, unless I can satisfy the restrictive Section 48A reassessment conditions.

For participants who have been subject to ministerial funding cuts under Section 34A, automatic renewal means that the cut plan becomes the baseline for all future renewals. A funding reduction that was applied as a “temporary” determination becomes permanently embedded in the plan structure.

Subsection 50A(8) makes this even more troubling: a plan renews automatically even if it is suspended. I could have my plan suspended, be unreachable due to a health crisis or hospitalisation, have my plan auto-renewed during that time, and have the suspension carry over into the new plan - all without any human review of whether my circumstances have changed.

What should happen instead: Automatic renewal should only operate as a safety net when a participant consents to it or when individual reassessment has been completed and the plan has been confirmed as still meeting the participant’s needs. At minimum, participants must have a right to a planning conversation before automatic renewal takes effect.

The unspent funds problem - and the unanswered liability question:

Auto-renewal does not just affect participants. It creates a serious and unresolved legal and financial problem for providers - and the Bill is silent on who bears the consequences.

Consider a realistic scenario directly relevant to my circumstances. My plan includes approved funding for a piece of assistive technology and a series of therapy sessions. The equipment has been ordered. The therapy programme has been scoped and agreed with my therapist. Both have been assessed as reasonable and necessary and approved in my plan. Neither has been fully delivered before my plan auto-renews. This may not be due to any failure on my part or my provider’s part. Assistive technology supply chains are notoriously slow - specialist equipment can take months or even years to arrive in Australia. Allied health waitlists in South Australia are long. Workforce shortages mean therapy blocks are routinely delayed through no fault of the participant. An auto-renewal date does not wait for a supply chain. It does not wait for a workforce crisis to ease. It simply arrives - and the funding disappears.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 15 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Under Section 50A, the new plan carries over the same text as the old plan - but unspent funds from the previous period do not roll over. They disappear. I cannot pay the equipment supplier for the approved order. I cannot pay my therapist for the approved therapy programme. The approval existed. The need existed. The funding was allocated. But the money is gone.

This creates three compounding harms.

First, I am left without equipment or therapy I have been assessed as needing - not because the NDIA withdrew approval, but because an administrative renewal date fell at the wrong moment. There is no mechanism under this Bill to restore that funding through a variation once it has been stripped on renewal.

Second, my provider - the AT supplier or the therapy practice - has delivered or commenced services in good faith against an approved plan. They may have ordered equipment, allocated staff time, or commenced a therapy block. When the funding disappears on renewal, they are left with an outstanding invoice and no funded plan to pay it against. The Bill creates no obligation on the NDIA to honour commitments made under the previous plan, and no compensation mechanism for providers caught by a renewal date they had no control over.

Third - and this is the question the Bill does not answer - who is liable? If I have entered into a service agreement with a provider based on approved NDIS funding, and that funding is stripped by operation of law at auto-renewal, am I personally liable for the provider’s costs? The NDIS Act currently provides strong protections against participants being personally liable for costs that exceed their plan funding. But if the plan has auto-renewed and the previous funding no longer exists, those protections may not apply in the same way. The Bill creates this liability gap and says nothing about how to close it.

This is not a hypothetical concern. It is an inevitable consequence of an auto-renewal mechanism that strips unspent funds without any transitional protection for in-progress approvals, outstanding orders, or commenced service agreements. The Government has not addressed this. The Committee must.

The amended Section 50A must include an explicit carry-over provision for approved but unspent funding where a service agreement, equipment order, or therapy programme was in place before the renewal date. The NDIA must be required to honour funding commitments made under an expiring plan for a reasonable period after renewal. Participants must not be personally liable for costs arising from funding stripped by auto-renewal. Providers must have a clear avenue to recover legitimate costs incurred in good faith against an approved plan.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 16 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

3.5 Schedule 1, Part 6: Reasonable and Necessary Supports - Sustainability Test (Section 17B and Section 34)

What the Bill does: This Part makes two fundamental changes to the “reasonable and necessary” framework. First, it amends the objects of the Act (Section 3(1)(d)) to provide supports “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme.” Second, it inserts Section 17B, which requires the CEO to have regard to a new set of principles in planning decisions - including that funding should be “equitable, having regard to similarities in needs and circumstances” across all participants.

The Part also introduces “value for money” provisions (Section 34(1A)–(1D)) that require the CEO to consider comparable supports at lower cost, and provisions that require the CEO to consider whether family, carers, informal networks, or community could provide supports instead (Section 34(1K)).

Why this concerns me: The insertion of financial sustainability into the “reasonable and necessary” test is the foundational attack on the NDIS in this Bill. The entire purpose of the scheme - and the reason it was designed as an individual entitlement rather than a block grant - was to guarantee that reasonable and necessary supports are determined by individual need, not by what the government can afford to spend on disability this year.

Section 17B(4) - the “equity” provision - is particularly alarming. It means that if the scheme is under budget pressure, the CEO can justify reducing my supports by pointing to what other participants with “similar needs and circumstances” are receiving. This is not equity. This is rationing. It allows one person’s adequate support to become the ceiling for everyone else’s, regardless of individual need.

The provisions requiring the CEO to consider whether family or carers could provide supports (Section 34(1K)) are also deeply concerning. Many people with disability do not have family who are able or willing to provide care. Others have explicitly chosen not to place that burden on family. The NDIS was designed to relieve families of the obligation to provide unsustainable levels of informal support. These provisions reverse that principle and treat family care as a first resort rather than a choice.

What should happen instead: The sustainability test in Section 3(1)(d) should be removed. The “equity across participants” principle in Section 17B(4) should be removed. The CEO should not be required to consider family care as a default substitute for funded supports. Reasonable and necessary must remain a needs-based test, not a budget-based one.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 17 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

3.6 Schedule 1, Part 7: Plan Suspension for Participants Who Are “Not Contactable” (Section 40A)

What the Bill does: This Part inserts Section 40A, which allows the CEO to suspend a participant’s plan if the CEO has made “reasonable attempts” to contact the participant and the participant is “not contactable.” The suspension takes effect from the day the CEO specifies. If the participant contacts the Agency within 90 days, the CEO has 28 days to either cease the suspension or make a new information request. After 90 days without contact, the suspension continues indefinitely until the participant re-establishes contact or has their participant status revoked under Section 30(1A).

Why this concerns me: This provision has the potential to devastate participants with communication disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or mental health conditions. It is precisely the people who are most at risk of being “not contactable” who are most dependent on their NDIS supports.

I want to be direct about what this means for someone like me. I use AAC technology to communicate. If my device breaks down, or if I am hospitalised, or if the NDIA sends correspondence in a format I cannot access with my technology, I may be effectively “not contactable” through no fault of my own. Under this provision, my plan can be suspended.

What counts as “reasonable attempts” to contact is not defined in the Bill. The NDIA’s track record of accessible communication is poor. I know from personal experience that NDIA correspondence does not always meet the accessibility standards required by participants with communication disabilities. If the NDIA sends me a letter I cannot read or reply to using my assistive technology, and then decides I am “not contactable,” and then suspends my plan - I lose all my supports at the moment I need them most.

The 90-day continuation of suspension, without any mandatory obligation to contact support coordinators, family members, or disability advocates, is unconscionable. If a participant’s plan is suspended, the NDIA should be required to exhaust every available avenue to re-establish contact - including through the participant’s support coordinator, their nominated emergency contacts, and the Department of Health - before suspension takes effect.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 18 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

What should happen instead: Before any plan suspension, the NDIA must:

• Make contact attempts through multiple accessible formats (not just standard mail).

• Notify the participant’s support coordinator and nominated emergency contacts.

• Provide a minimum 30 days’ written notice of intent to suspend.

• Allow the participant the right to immediate internal review before suspension takes effect.

• Legislate specific protections for participants with communication disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or who are in hospital or in crisis.

3.7 Schedule 1, Part 8: Tightening the Meaning of Permanence (Section 24(5) and Section 25A)

What the Bill does: This Part amends the meaning of “permanent” impairment for NDIS eligibility purposes. An impairment is only “permanent” if the participant has undergone all “appropriate treatment” for the impairment, and any other treatment is unlikely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate its impact. “Appropriate treatment” means treatment that is evidence-based, can reliably be expected to materially improve the impairment, and is regularly performed in Australia. The Bill explicitly provides that a treatment can be “appropriate” regardless of whether a person’s individual circumstances (including financial circumstances and geographical location) restrict their access to it.

Why this concerns me: This provision creates a devastating Catch-22 for many participants. If there is a treatment that could theoretically improve my condition - but I cannot access it because I cannot afford it, or because it is not available in South Australia, or because my overall health makes it too risky - I may nonetheless be deemed not to have a “permanent” impairment because I haven’t undergone that treatment.

Subsection 25A(2) makes this explicit: the treatment is “appropriate” regardless of the person’s financial circumstances or geographical location. This means the NDIA can point to a treatment that exists somewhere in Australia, at some cost, and use that to deny access to the scheme or reduce funding - even if the participant genuinely cannot access that treatment.

This is not a hypothetical concern. It will be used as a mechanism to reduce the NDIS access pathway for people with conditions for which treatments exist but are not universally accessible. The

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 19 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

consequence will be that people who have genuine, significant, and ongoing disability needs are deemed ineligible for the scheme because a theoretical treatment is available.

What should happen instead: The definition of “permanent” must take into account whether the person can realistically access appropriate treatment given their actual circumstances, not theoretical circumstances. Financial barriers, geographic barriers, and clinical contra-indications must all be relevant factors. The provision should be removed or substantially redrafted.

3.8 Schedule 1, Part 9: Eligibility Based on Access to Other Services (Section 25B)

What the Bill does: This Part introduces a new access requirement: to access the NDIS, a person must meet the “alternative support requirements.” These requirements exclude impairments caused by motor vehicle accidents (where compensation schemes apply) and work-related injuries (where workers’ compensation applies). They also allow the Minister to declare, by NDIS rules, that any support is an “alternative support” for any impairment - meaning the NDIA need not fund supports for that impairment if an alternative support has been declared.

Why this concerns me: The exclusion of motor vehicle and workplace accident claims from NDIS access is superficially reasonable - but the mechanism for doing so (exclusion at the access gate) creates significant problems for participants who have mixed impairments, some of which arise from accidents and some of which do not.

More concerning is the Ministerial power to declare alternative supports for any impairment. This is an open-ended mechanism to remove categories of impairment from NDIS eligibility by regulation, without parliamentary scrutiny, simply by asserting that some other service “could” provide a support. As mainstream services are increasingly under-resourced and unable to meet the needs of people with significant disability, the risk that this power will be used to push people with disability out of the NDIS and into inadequate mainstream services is very real.

The provision that revocation of participant status applies to current participants (not just new applicants) is particularly alarming. Long-term NDIS participants - people who have built their lives around their plans - could have their status revoked because a new alternative support is declared for their impairment.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 20 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

What should happen instead: The mechanism for excluding impairments should be targeted and specific, not an open-ended Ministerial power. Declarations of alternative supports must require evidence that the alternative service is genuinely able to meet the participant’s needs. The provision should not apply to existing participants without individual assessment and transition planning.

3.9 Schedule 2, Part 2: Civil Penalties and Regulatory Powers

What the Bill does: This Part introduces civil penalty provisions for NDIS participants and providers, including new information-gathering powers, compliance notices, and enforcement mechanisms. Participants may be subject to civil penalties for failure to comply with information requests, record-keeping requirements, or other compliance obligations.

My Position: Civil Penalties - With Safeguards

I want to be clear: I am not categorically opposed to civil penalties in the NDIS context. Where a participant has genuinely misused scheme funds, appropriate accountability is warranted. But civil penalties for participants can only be fair if the playing field is level. Right now, it is not even close to level.

If the NDIA uses top-tier Commonwealth lawyers to prosecute participants, participants must have access to equally skilled legal representation. This is a basic principle of procedural fairness. Without it, civil penalties become a tool of intimidation against people who lack the resources to defend themselves.

Mandatory Safeguards Required:

A. Establish an Independent Legal Support Agency

A fully funded, genuinely independent agency must be created to provide legal representation and advocacy to participants facing civil penalties. This agency must:

• Be independent from the NDIA - not NDIA-funded or NDIA-controlled.

• Provide access to top-tier legal representation at no cost to participants.

• If the NDIA uses expensive lawyers, the participant must have equally skilled representation funded by the Commonwealth.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 21 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

• Specialise in disability law and employ advocates with expertise in communication disabilities.

B. Mandate Accessible Information and Support

Before any civil penalty can be imposed, the NDIA must prove that:

• The participant was provided with up-to-date, accessible information about their obligations in a format appropriate to their disability.

• The participant was offered proactive support to meet compliance requirements.

• The NDIA made reasonable adjustments to enable the participant to comply.

• Any failure to comply was not caused by NDIA administrative errors - including inaccessible communication or failure to respond to participant queries.

C. Proportionality and Procedural Safeguards

• Penalty amounts must be capped and proportionate to the participant’s financial circumstances.

• First-time failures must result in education and support, not penalties.

• Penalties cannot be imposed on participants with communication or cognitive disabilities unless independent advocacy confirms the participant understood their obligation and had capacity to comply.

• All penalty decisions must be subject to immediate internal review with legal representation.

D. Reverse the Power Imbalance

If the NDIA fails to respond to participant correspondence within mandated timeframes, it should face the same proportionate consequences it seeks to impose on participants. The compliance framework must apply in both directions.

3.10 Schedule 3, Parts 1 and 2: Pricing Control and Automation of Decisions

Schedule 3, Part 1: Ministerial Control of Pricing

What the Bill does: This Part transfers day-to-day control of NDIS pricing from an independent process to ministerial determination. The Minister gains powers to set price limits, pricing arrangements, and conditions for NDIS supports by legislative instrument.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 22 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Why this concerns me: Independent pricing is essential to maintaining a viable market of quality providers. When pricing is subject to political pressure, Ministers will cut prices to manage scheme costs in the short term. The result is that experienced allied health professionals - occupational therapists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists - leave the NDIS market because they cannot make a viable business at below-cost rates. Participants are left with less experienced providers, or no providers at all, particularly in regional areas.

My therapy supports depend on a viable market of skilled therapists. If pricing is cut to the point where specialists cannot afford to work in the NDIS, that funding is effectively useless. I have the money on paper; I have no one to spend it with in practice.

The conflict of interest is direct and obvious: the Minister responsible for NDIS costs is the same Minister who sets NDIS prices. This is not independent governance. It is a mechanism for the same person who wants to cut spending to set the prices that will achieve those cuts.

Schedule 3, Part 2: Automation of Administrative Action

What the Bill does: This Part allows the NDIA to automate administrative decisions - including decisions about plans, funding, and compliance - without requiring human review of each individual decision. The provisions allow for systems to exercise powers that would otherwise be exercised by a delegate of the CEO.

Why this concerns me: Automated decision-making in the NDIS context is deeply concerning. The needs of people with significant disability are complex, highly individual, and context-dependent. An algorithm cannot understand the interplay between my communication disability, my physical disability, my employment goals, and my therapy needs. An algorithm cannot understand why a support that looks unusual on a spreadsheet is in fact essential to my daily functioning.

The risks of automated decision-making for marginalised and vulnerable populations are well- documented: algorithms reflect the biases of their training data, systematically disadvantage people whose situations are unusual, and create decisions that are effectively unreviewable because no human being made them.

I am also deeply concerned about the transparency of these systems. Participants and their advocates will not know what criteria the algorithm is applying, why a decision has been made, or how to challenge it effectively.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 23 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

What should happen instead: All automated decisions must be reviewed and approved by a qualified human decision-maker before taking effect. Participants must have an absolute right to request human review of any automated decision. The NDIA must publish and make transparent the algorithms, criteria, and processes used. Annual independent audits of automated systems must be legislated.

3.11 Schedule 5: The 12-Month Ministerial Override Without Parliamentary Approval

What the Bill does: Schedule 5 grants the Minister power to modify or suspend the operation of the NDIS Act itself for up to 12 months by regulation, without Parliamentary approval. This is known in legal terms as a Henry VIII clause. It means the Minister can effectively rewrite how the Act works, for any reason the Minister considers appropriate, simply by making a regulation. No debate. No vote. No scrutiny. No advance notice to participants. The regulation takes effect, and the Act operates differently for up to a year.

This power is renewable. There is no limit on how many times it can be exercised. A 12-month override can be followed by another 12-month override, and another after that. What is presented as a temporary, emergency-style power is in practice an indefinitely renewable mechanism for the Minister to govern the NDIS outside Parliament whenever it is politically convenient to do so.

Why this concerns me: This provision has nothing to do with fraud. It is not targeted at providers who steal from the scheme. It is not a tool for recovering misappropriated funds or prosecuting criminal operators. It is a tool for a Minister to change the rules that govern my life, my plan, and my rights, without asking Parliament’s permission.

Every concern I have raised in this submission could be made worse by Schedule 5. The safeguards I have called for in relation to Section 34A, Section 33(2EA), Section 50A, and Section 48A could themselves be suspended under this power. A Minister who wants to cut supports, cap therapy, strip unspent funds, or restrict reassessments but faces parliamentary resistance can simply invoke Schedule 5 and proceed by regulation. The checks that Parliament might otherwise impose become optional.

My plan runs until December 2030. Under Schedule 5, a Minister could change how my plan operates, what the NDIA is required to do in relation to my supports, or what protections I am entitled to, at any

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 24 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

point during those five years, without any prior notice to me and without any right to object before the change takes effect. I would have no warning. My support workers, my therapists, and my providers would have no warning. We would simply find ourselves operating under different rules because a Minister decided, by regulation, that the rules should change.

There is a profound irony in this provision that must be named. The Government claims this Bill is about addressing fraud in the NDIS. But a system in which participants cannot rely on stable, predictable, legally guaranteed entitlements is a system that drives people towards workarounds and informal arrangements. When people with disability cannot trust that their approved supports will still be funded next month because a Minister can change the rules by regulation at any time, they are forced to find ways to secure what they need outside the formal system. Schedule 5 does not reduce the conditions that give rise to fraud. It creates them.

This power is fundamentally incompatible with a rights-based entitlement scheme. The NDIS was designed to give people with permanent, significant disability stable, legally guaranteed support. You cannot have a rights-based scheme if the rules governing those rights can be rewritten by one person, at any time, for up to 12 months, with no accountability to Parliament and no notice to the people affected.

What should happen instead: Schedule 5 must be removed from the Bill in its entirety. There is no legitimate policy purpose that justifies giving a Minister the power to override the NDIS Act by regulation. Genuine emergencies affecting the operation of the scheme are already addressed through existing legislative mechanisms. If the Government identifies a genuine gap in the Act’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances, it should address that gap through transparent, consultative legislative amendment, not through an open-ended ministerial override that bypasses Parliament and leaves participants with no certainty about their rights.

3.12 Transitional Provisions: A Label, Not a Safeguard

The Bill contains a range of provisions described as “transitional.” On paper, that sounds benign and even reassuring. It suggests that changes will be gradual, time-limited, and carefully managed. In practice, “transitional” is only a label. It does not guarantee protection for participants. It does not guarantee that changes are temporary. It does not guarantee that people like me will be shielded from sudden or permanent loss of supports.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 25 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

The transitional items in this Bill do far more than tidy up timing. For example, items that convert reassessment dates into end dates effectively reset the logic of existing plans. Plans that participants believed would be reconsidered on a certain date are instead turned into auto-renewing plans under the new framework. That change is described as “transitional,” but there is nothing temporary about its effect. It permanently alters how those plans will operate from that point forward.

Similarly, items that allow the Minister to determine new end dates, or to shift participants into the new framework earlier than expected, are framed as transitional machinery. In reality, they are mechanisms to bring large groups of existing participants under the new, more restrictive rules more quickly and with minimal scrutiny. Once you have been transitioned, there is no pathway back. Transitional in name, permanent in consequence.

As a participant with a long-term plan, I experience “transitional” provisions not as a neutral administrative step but as a source of deep uncertainty. My current plan runs until December 2030. I planned my life, my work, my business, and my supports on the basis of that timeframe. When a Bill tells me that my plan can be transitioned into a new framework on an earlier date, or that my reassessment date is now an end date, it does not feel like a gentle transition. It feels like the ground shifting under my feet.

This uncertainty is compounded when transitional provisions interact with the other powers in this Bill. A “transitional” shift into a framework where Section 34A, Section 33(2EA), Section 48A, and Section 50A all apply does not simply move me from one neutral state to another. It moves me into a system where my funding can be cut by ministerial rule, my supports can be capped by cohort, my reassessment rights are restricted, and my unspent funds can be stripped at renewal. Calling that move “transitional” does not make it safe.

If the Government intends transitional provisions to protect participants, then those protections must be explicit. There must be clear guarantees that:

• No participant will be worse off in the long term as a result of a transitional provision.

• Transitional measures cannot be used to accelerate cuts, caps, or restrictions on reassessments.

• Participants will be individually notified, in accessible formats, about how each transitional item affects their specific plan.

• Transitional instruments cannot be used to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny of substantive policy changes.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 26 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

None of that is present in this Bill. Instead, “transitional” is used to describe provisions that move participants into a less protective framework, earlier and with less scrutiny, and then leave them there. That is not a safeguard. It is a strategy.

In my view, transitional provisions should never be used to introduce or entrench changes that materially reduce participants’ rights or supports. Any measure that does so is not transitional in substance, only in name.

SECTION 4: RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Overarching Position

I support genuine NDIS reform. The scheme has governance problems, the NDIA has serious administrative failures, and fraud by unscrupulous providers must be pursued aggressively. However, this Bill does not achieve genuine reform. It targets participants instead of systemic failures.

The recommendations below are divided into two categories:

1. Specific amendments to this Bill - changes required before it should proceed

2. Broader reforms the Government should pursue instead

4.2 Specific Amendments Required to This Bill

Recommendation 1: Remove Schedule 1, Part 4 (Ministerial Power to Cut Funding)

Delete Section 34A entirely. Restore the principle that reasonable and necessary supports are determined by individual assessment, not ministerial decree. If budget sustainability is genuinely a concern, address it through fraud prosecution and NDIA efficiency improvements - not arbitrary cuts to participant supports.

Recommendation 2: Remove the Sustainability Test from the Objects and Section 17B (Schedule 1, Part 6)

Delete the amendment to Section 3(1)(d) inserting “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme.” Delete Section 17B(4) (the equity across participants provision). The NDIS must remain needs-based, not budget-capped.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 27 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Recommendation 3: Restore Support Coordinator Rights to Request Reassessments (Schedule 1, Part 2)

Amend Section 48A to allow support coordinators and advocates to request unscheduled reassessments on behalf of participants, particularly those with communication disabilities. Replace “significant AND ongoing” with “significant OR ongoing” to ensure acute crises are not excluded. Restore the 21-day response timeline for urgent reassessments.

Recommendation 4: Insert Safeguards for Plan Suspensions (Schedule 1, Part 7)

Before a plan can be suspended under Section 40A:

• NDIA must attempt contact through multiple accessible formats.

• NDIA must notify the participant’s support coordinator and emergency contacts.

• NDIA must provide a minimum 30 days’ written notice of intent to suspend.

• Participant must have the right to immediate internal review before suspension takes effect.

• Specific protections must be legislated for participants with communication disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or who are in hospital or crisis.

Recommendation 5: Mandate Safeguards for Civil Penalties (Schedule 2, Part 2)

If civil penalties for participants are to remain in the Bill, the following must be legislated:

• An independent, Commonwealth-funded legal support agency providing top-tier representation to participants facing penalties.

• Mandatory proof that the participant received accessible information and support before any penalty applies.

• Proportionality caps and procedural safeguards including immediate right to internal review with legal representation.

• First-time failures must result in education and support, not penalties.

• Penalties cannot be applied to participants who lack capacity to comply due to their disability without independent advocacy confirmation.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 28 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Recommendation 6: Mandate Human Oversight of Automated Decisions (Schedule 3, Part 2)

Amend the automation provisions to require:

• All automated decisions must be reviewed and approved by a qualified human decision-maker before taking effect.

• Participants must have an absolute right to request human review of any automated decision.

• The NDIA must publish and make transparent all algorithms, criteria, and processes used.

• Annual independent audits of automated systems.

Recommendation 7: Define Functional Capacity Assessment Standards Before Legislating (Schedule 1, Part 1)

The Bill must not proceed with functional capacity assessment provisions until:

• All assessment tools, thresholds, and processes are publicly released for genuine consultation.

• Disability representative organisations have reviewed and endorsed the assessment framework.

• Protections are legislated limiting reassessment frequency for permanent disabilities (maximum once every 5 years unless participant requests review or deterioration occurs).

• Specific accommodations are mandated for people with communication disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and fluctuating conditions.

Recommendation 8: Restore Independent Pricing Authority (Schedule 3, Part 1)

Remove ministerial control over pricing. Restore independent pricing governance with input from disability sector experts, providers, and participants. Pricing decisions must be evidence-based and insulated from political budget cycles.

Recommendation 9: Require Individual Assessment Before Plan Renewal (Schedule 1, Part 5)

Plans must not auto-renew without individual assessment or participant consent. At minimum, participants must have access to a planning conversation to confirm whether the plan still meets their needs, with particular focus on whether any ministerial funding cuts have affected adequacy.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 29 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Recommendation 10: Remove or Substantially Narrow the Permanence Provisions (Schedule 1, Part 8)

The definition of “permanent” must account for actual barriers to treatment including financial circumstances, geographic location, and clinical contra-indications. Section 25A(2) should be removed or amended so that treatments are not “appropriate” if the person genuinely cannot access them in their real circumstances.

Recommendation 11: Limit Ministerial Power to Declare Alternative Supports (Schedule 1, Part 9)

The Ministerial power to declare alternative supports for any impairment must be constrained by evidence requirements and subject to parliamentary disallowance with extended notice periods. The provision must not apply to existing participants without individual assessment and transition planning with genuine participant consent.

4.3 Broader Reforms the Government Should Pursue

Recommendation 12: Royal Commission into NDIA Administration

Establish a Royal Commission to investigate NDIA governance failures, administrative inefficiencies, staff training inadequacies, and conflicts of interest in NDIA procurement and provider relationships.

Recommendation 13: Invest Substantially in Provider Fraud Prosecution

Redirect resources from participant compliance enforcement to pursuing fraudulent providers. The NDIA’s own data shows billions lost to provider fraud. Target the criminals, not the victims.

Recommendation 14: Establish an Independent Participant Advocacy Service

Create a fully funded, genuinely independent agency to provide legal support and advocacy to participants in disputes with the NDIA. People with communication disabilities must have access to skilled advocates at no cost.

Recommendation 15: Mandate Accessible Communication

Legislate that all NDIA communications, processes, and decision-making must meet accessibility standards. Failure to provide accessible communication must invalidate any adverse decision.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 30 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Recommendation 16: Protect Quality Therapy and Support Services

Ensure NDIS pricing is sufficient to retain high-quality therapists and allied health professionals. Suppressing pricing drives experienced providers out of the market and causes preventable functional decline at far greater long-term cost.

Recommendation 17: Genuine Co-Design for All Future Reforms

Commit to genuine co-design with Disability representative organisations for all future NDIS legislation and policy: exposure drafts with a minimum 90-day consultation period, accessible consultation processes, and meaningful incorporation of feedback.

Recommendation 18: Enshrine “Prove It Once” for Permanent Disabilities

Legislate that people with permanent, stable disabilities are assessed once for access and do not require ongoing reassessment of eligibility. Functional capacity may be monitored for planning purposes, but access must be guaranteed for life for conditions that will never improve.

Recommendation 19: Strengthen Protections Against Institutionalisation

Legislate that the NDIS must prioritise independent living and community participation. Budget considerations must not be used to pressure participants into congregate care models. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability’s recommendations against institutionalisation must be upheld.

Recommendation 20: Mandate Accessible Ministerial Offices

If Ministers are to wield power over disability supports, they must maintain fully accessible offices, hold regular accessible consultations with people with disability, and respond to participant correspondence within mandated timeframes.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 31 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

SECTION 5: CONCLUSION

The NDIS was created as a promise: that Australians with permanent and significant disability would no longer have to beg for the supports they need to live with dignity. It was designed as a rights-based, needs-based scheme, where reasonable and necessary supports are determined by individual assessment - not political budgets, not ministerial decree, and not arbitrary sustainability tests.

This Bill breaks that promise.

What This Bill Really Does

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is not about fixing fraud. It is not about improving NDIA governance. It does not address the real systemic failures that plague the scheme. Instead, it:

• Grants Ministers unprecedented power to cut participant funding by ministerial rule (Schedule 1, Part 4, Section 34A), bypassing individual assessment.

• Inserts “financial sustainability” into the objects of the Act (Schedule 1, Part 6), transforming the NDIS from a needs-based scheme into a budget-capped programme.

• Removes participant and advocate rights to trigger reassessments (Schedule 1, Part 2, Section 48A), leaving people with deteriorating conditions trapped in outdated plans.

• Introduces broad plan suspension powers (Schedule 1, Part 7, Section 40A) with inadequate safeguards for people with communication disabilities.

• Introduces civil penalties for participants (Schedule 2, Part 2) without adequate independent legal protection.

• Automates high-stakes decisions (Schedule 3, Part 2) without transparent oversight or mandatory human review.

• Transfers pricing control to Ministers (Schedule 3, Part 1), enabling politically motivated cuts to therapy and essential supports.

• Mandates automatic plan renewal (Schedule 1, Part 5, Section 50A) without individual reassessment, potentially locking participants into inadequate plans for years.

These measures do not target fraudulent providers. They target participants.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 32 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

Who This Hurts Most

The people who will suffer most under this Bill are:

• People with communication disabilities who cannot self-advocate and rely on support coordinators to trigger reassessments and protect their rights.

• People with progressive or fluctuating conditions whose functional capacity changes but who will be locked into outdated plans with no mechanism for timely review.

• People in crisis - in hospital, homeless, experiencing family violence, or in mental health breakdown - who will have their plans suspended for non-compliance while they are fighting for survival.

• Children with developmental disabilities whose early intervention supports will be cut by ministerial rule at the exact moment therapy is most effective.

• People relying on therapy to maintain function whose capacity-building supports will be slashed, leading to preventable functional decline and far greater long-term costs.

These are not abstractions. I am one of these people. So are tens of thousands of Australians with severe, permanent disabilities who depend on the NDIS to live independently, work, participate in their communities, and maintain their dignity.

What Genuine Reform Looks Like

Genuine NDIS reform would:

1. Prosecute fraudulent providers aggressively - redirect enforcement resources from participant compliance to targeting the criminals stealing billions from the scheme.

2. Fix NDIA governance and administration - investigate systemic failures through a Royal Commission, improve staff training, reduce turnover, and mandate accessible communication.

3. Protect therapy and preventative supports - reverse cuts to capacity-building funding and ensure pricing retains high-quality allied health professionals.

4. Strengthen independent advocacy - establish a fully funded, genuinely independent legal support service for participants in disputes with the NDIA.

5. Legislate “prove it once” for permanent disabilities - people with stable, permanent conditions should not face endless reassessments of eligibility.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 33 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

6. Enshrine needs-based assessment - remove sustainability tests and restore the principle that reasonable and necessary supports are determined by individual need.

7. Require genuine co-design - consult meaningfully with disability representative organisations before legislating, not after.

This Bill does none of that. It punishes participants for governance failures we did not cause and cannot control.

A Personal Reflection

I have a PhD. I run a business. I work as a researcher. I contribute to my community. I pay taxes. None of this would be possible without the NDIS.

But I also have severe physical and communication disabilities. I use a wheelchair. I rely on assistive technology to speak. I need daily support workers to assist with personal care and domestic tasks. My plan - currently providing approximately 74 hours of support per week over five years - reflects the reality of living with a permanent, severe disability. It is not extravagant. It is what I need to live independently, work, and participate in society.

Under this Bill, a Minister who has never met me could issue a rule cutting my therapy supports (Schedule 1, Part 4, Section 34A). My plan could be suspended if the NDIA decides I am “not contactable” after sending correspondence I cannot access with my AAC technology (Schedule 1, Part 7, Section 40A). My plan could auto-renew year after year without anyone checking whether it still meets my needs (Schedule 1, Part 5, Section 50A). And if I am ever the subject of civil penalties, I face the full weight of Commonwealth legal resources - while relying on whatever I can access on a disability pension.

That is not reform. That is cruelty.

Final Recommendation

The Government is asking the public to believe that this Bill is about protecting the NDIS and keeping participants safe. From where I sit as a participant, that is not what it does. It reads like a cost-cutting exercise dressed up as concern. It gives Ministers and the NDIA powerful new tools to cut, cap, delay and suspend supports for people with disability, while leaving the structural causes of fraud and waste largely untouched. It is the disability community that is being asked to bear the pain so that the Government can be seen to be “doing something” about NDIS costs.

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 34 of 35

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1608

The Government is asking the public to believe that this Bill is about protecting the NDIS and keeping participants safe. From where I sit as a participant, that is not what it does. It reads like a cost-cutting exercise dressed up as concern. It gives Ministers and the NDIA powerful new tools to cut, cap, delay and suspend supports for people with disability, while leaving the structural causes of fraud and waste largely untouched. It is the disability community that is being asked to bear the pain so that the Government can be seen to be “doing something” about NDIS costs.

This Bill should be rejected in its entirety.

If the Government is genuinely committed to NDIS sustainability, it must pursue the real problems: fraud by providers, NDIA mismanagement, inadequate mainstream services, and the failure to transition participants appropriately into well-resourced alternative services. It must do so through genuine co-design with the disability community, with exposure drafts, meaningful consultation, and evidence-based policy.

It must not do so by stripping rights from the people the NDIS was created to protect.

The NDIS is not a political football. It is a lifeline. For people like me - people with permanent, severe disabilities who will never “get better” - the NDIS is the difference between independence and institutionalisation, between participation and isolation, between dignity and despair.

We deserve better than this Bill.

Dr Darryl Sellwood Underdale, South Australia 5032 May 2026

*This submission is made in a personal capacity and reflects my own experience as a person with disability and an NDIS participant. It draws on my academic expertise in disability research and my lived experience as a participant with severe physical and communication disabilities.

Due to the extremely limited timeframe for submissions and the profound significance of this Bill for people with disability, I have used artificial intelligence tools to assist in the drafting and development of this submission. All content, positions, arguments, and personal statements reflect my own views, experiences, and instructions. The AI was used as a drafting tool under my direction - every word has been reviewed and approved by me as an accurate representation of my perspective and lived experience.*

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dr Darryl Sellwood May 2026 Page 35 of 35