National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

To the Senate Committee,

I write as the Founder of a small, non-registered NDIS provider delivering Support Coordination and Specialist Support Coordination services in South Australia. Our organisation works with NDIS participants, families and informal supports to implement plans, coordinate services, address barriers and support safe, effective access to disability-related supports.

We are committed to upholding the human rights, dignity, safety, choice and inclusion of all people with disability. This includes participants with physical disability, intellectual disability, autism, psychosocial disability, acquired disability, developmental delay, communication disability, complex health needs and participants with multiple and interacting support needs.

We recognise the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, sustainability must be achieved in a way that remains consistent with the objects and principles of the NDIS Act, Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Scheme’s core commitment to individualised, reasonable and necessary support.

We are concerned that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 may reduce transparency, limit participant safeguards, narrow access to supports, and increase uncertainty for participants, families, carers and providers.

We respectfully submit that the Bill should not proceed in its current form.

Summary of our concerns

Our primary concerns are that the Bill may:

• reduce individualised assessment and decision-making

• increase reliance on Ministerial discretion

• allow broad plan reductions or support caps without sufficient Parliamentary scrutiny

• narrow the interpretation of disability-related need

• limit access to reassessment where circumstances change

• create risk where unspent funds are removed despite implementation delays

• increase uncertainty for participants with complex or fluctuating support needs

• reduce confidence for providers operating in already thin or complex markets

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

• shift risk and cost to participants, families, unpaid carers, emergency systems and mainstream services

Concerns about specific provisions

1. Section 34A: Ministerial power to reduce plans by percentage or category

Proposed section 34A appears to allow broad reductions to participant plans, including reductions by category of support.

This raises significant concerns because plan budgets are linked to assessed functional need, implementation requirements and risk management. A category-level or percentage-based reduction may not reflect the circumstances of an individual participant.

For participants with complex needs, reductions to a support category can affect:

• daily living support

• personal care

• community access

• behaviour support

• therapy continuity

• assistive technology implementation

• housing-related supports

• Support Coordination and service oversight

• informal carer sustainability

A broad reduction mechanism risks reducing supports without sufficient regard to individual circumstances, existing commitments, implementation barriers or safeguarding concerns.

This may result in participants being left with plans that are no longer adequate to meet assessed disability-related needs.

2. Section 33(2EA): Ministerial power to cap supports by cohort

We are concerned that section 33(2EA) may allow supports to be capped by cohort.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

Cohort-based caps are difficult to reconcile with the principle of individualised planning. Participants with the same diagnosis or demographic profile may have substantially different functional capacity, informal supports, communication needs, living arrangements, trauma histories, safeguarding risks and environmental barriers.

Capping supports by cohort may particularly disadvantage participants whose needs are complex, less visible, fluctuating or poorly understood. This includes, but is not limited to:

• people with psychosocial disability

• autistic participants

• people with intellectual disability

• people with acquired brain injury

• people with complex communication needs

• people with trauma-related support needs

• participants with limited or exhausted informal supports

We are also concerned that where cap values are contained in referenced documents, those values may be changed without the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny as amendments to primary legislation.

This creates uncertainty for participants and providers and may reduce transparency in decisions that have substantial practical consequences.

3. Section 34(1)(aa): “directly arising” from impairment

The proposed requirement that supports must be “directly arising” from a participant’s impairment may narrow access to reasonable and necessary supports.

Disability-related support needs are often the result of multiple interacting factors. A participant’s impairment may affect executive functioning, communication, mobility, emotional regulation, social interaction, decision-making, risk awareness, personal care, community participation and capacity to engage with services.

In practice, support needs may arise from the interaction between disability, environment, informal support availability, housing, health, trauma, communication, education, employment and community access.

A narrow “directly arising” test may exclude supports that are necessary to address the functional impact of disability simply because the causal relationship is complex.

This may lead to:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

• increased disputes about causation

• inconsistent decision-making

• reduced plan flexibility

• increased administrative burden

• greater difficulty for participants with complex presentations

• higher demand for review and appeal mechanisms

A more appropriate test should recognise the functional impact of disability and the interaction between impairment, environment and support need.

4. Section 50A: auto-renewal and loss of unspent funds

The proposed auto-renewal provisions raise significant concerns where unspent funds are removed at renewal.

Unspent funds do not necessarily indicate that a participant did not require the support. Funds may remain unspent due to factors outside the participant’s control, including:

• provider shortages

• long waitlists

• delayed quotes or assessments

• assistive technology approval and supply delays

• home modification planning and construction timeframes

• housing transitions

• hospitalisation

• illness or family crisis

• safeguarding concerns requiring careful provider matching

• plan implementation delays

• inadequate Support Coordination funding

• thin market conditions

Examples include a wheelchair on order, a home modification not yet completed, a behaviour support plan in development, or a staged transition to independent living that is underway but not finalised.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

If funds are removed on renewal and variations cannot restore them, participants may lose access to supports that were already assessed, planned or in progress.

This creates financial, practical and safeguarding risk for participants and providers. It may also discourage providers from commencing complex work where funding continuity is uncertain.

5. Section 48A: reassessment restrictions

Participants require accessible reassessment pathways when their circumstances change.

Restricting reassessment may leave participants with plans that no longer correspond to their disability-related support needs, particularly where there is:

• functional decline

• carer illness or withdrawal

• family breakdown

• housing instability

• school exclusion

• hospital discharge

• escalation in behaviours of concern

• mental health deterioration

• increased safeguarding risk

• loss of informal support

• new assistive technology or home modification requirements

For participants with complex or fluctuating needs, reassessment is a necessary safeguard. It enables the Scheme to respond to changed circumstances before risk escalates.

If reassessment pathways are too limited, unmet need is likely to shift to families, unpaid carers, hospitals, emergency services, child protection, homelessness services and crisis mental health systems.

6. Sections 40A and 30(1A): suspension and revocation

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

Any provisions allowing suspension or revocation of NDIS access require clear safeguards.

Participants at greatest risk of administrative non-compliance may also be participants at greatest risk if supports are suspended. This includes participants with cognitive disability, psychosocial disability, communication disability, trauma histories, limited informal support, unstable housing, family violence risk or limited digital access.

Suspension or revocation should not occur without:

• accessible communication

• supported decision-making

• clear reasons

• procedural fairness

• opportunity to respond

• risk assessment

• review rights

• safeguards for essential supports

• consideration of disability-related barriers to compliance

Without these safeguards, there is a risk that suspension or revocation provisions may disproportionately affect participants with the highest support needs and the least capacity to navigate administrative processes.

7. Section 9B: new eligibility test from 2028

The proposed eligibility changes from 2028 create significant uncertainty.

Eligibility criteria determine access to a national disability support scheme. Any substantial change must be subject to detailed consultation, clear transitional arrangements, independent analysis and co-design with people with disability and their representative organisations.

There is particular risk if eligibility is narrowed before alternative foundational, mainstream or community supports are fully operational, funded, accessible and independently evaluated.

Mainstream systems, including health, education, housing, mental health, child protection and community services, are not currently equipped to meet the full range of disability-related support needs for people who may lose or be denied NDIS access.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

Eligibility reform should not proceed unless there is clear evidence that alternative systems are able to provide timely, appropriate and enforceable support.

8. Schedule 5: Ministerial power to change how the Act operates for 12 months without Parliament

Schedule 5 appears to allow the Minister to alter the operation of the Act for a period of 12 months without ordinary Parliamentary scrutiny.

This raises significant governance and rule-of-law concerns.

The NDIS Act affects access to essential supports, including personal care, mobility, communication, housing-related supports, assistive technology, therapy, behaviour support, community participation and Support Coordination.

Powers that alter the operation of the Act should be subject to transparent scrutiny, clear limits, review mechanisms and Parliamentary oversight.

Temporary executive powers may create uncertainty for participants, providers and decision-makers. They may also reduce public confidence in the stability and accountability of the Scheme.

Impact on choice and control

The Bill may reduce practical choice and control for participants.

Choice and control depend on more than the formal ability to choose providers. They require participants to have sufficient, flexible and timely support to pursue their goals, manage risk, communicate preferences, implement plans and maintain service continuity.

Broad plan reductions, cohort caps, narrowed eligibility, loss of unspent funds and restricted reassessment pathways may limit a participant’s ability to make meaningful choices about their life and supports.

This is particularly relevant for participants who rely on Support Coordination to understand their plans, source providers, resolve service barriers, manage risk and maintain safeguards.

Impact on safety and safeguarding

Many NDIS supports are directly linked to participant safety.

Supports may be required to prevent or reduce risk associated with:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

• personal care needs

• mobility limitations

• communication barriers

• behaviours of concern

• self-neglect

• exploitation or abuse

• carer breakdown

• unsafe housing

• social isolation

• hospital discharge

• mental health crisis

• restrictive practices

Where funding is reduced, capped, delayed, removed or unable to be reassessed, risk may increase. That risk is then likely to transfer to informal supports, emergency services, health systems, crisis services and providers working without adequate resources.

Any reform to the NDIS must be assessed through a safeguarding lens, not only a budgetary lens.

Impact on dignity and inclusion

The NDIS is a central mechanism through which many people with disability access ordinary life opportunities.

Adequate supports enable people to:

• live safely

• maintain personal care and health

• communicate

• make decisions

• access education and employment

• participate in community

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

• maintain relationships

• live outside institutional or congregate settings

• reduce reliance on family members

• pursue personal goals

Reforms that reduce flexibility, restrict reassessment, narrow eligibility or impose cohort-based caps may reduce the capacity of participants to live with dignity and inclusion.

Human rights compliance requires more than continued access to a scheme. It requires that the scheme remains capable of responding to individual disability-related need.

Impact on provider viability

Small providers are an important part of the NDIS market. Many provide flexible, relationship-based, locally responsive services, particularly where participants have complex support needs or require careful matching.

The Bill may increase provider uncertainty where plans can be reduced, capped, auto- renewed without funds carrying forward, or made difficult to reassess.

For small providers, this may affect:

• workforce planning

• ability to retain skilled staff

• willingness to accept complex referrals

• continuity of support

• financial viability

• administrative burden

• service availability in thin markets

Provider viability is directly connected to participant access and safety. If ethical small providers withdraw from complex work, participants with the highest support needs may face reduced choice, longer wait times and greater service instability.

Recommendations

We respectfully recommend that the Committee:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

1. Recommend that the Bill not proceed in its current form.

2. Remove or substantially limit broad Ministerial powers to reduce plans, cap supports by cohort, or alter the operation of the Act without ordinary Parliamentary scrutiny.

3. Preserve individualised assessment as a core feature of the NDIS.

4. Amend or remove the “directly arising” test to ensure participants with complex and interacting disability-related needs are not unfairly excluded.

5. Ensure unspent funds are not automatically removed where supports are planned, quoted, delayed, waitlisted, ordered or unable to be implemented due to system or market barriers.

6. Maintain accessible reassessment pathways where a participant’s circumstances, needs or risks change.

7. Embed strong safeguards before any suspension or revocation, including accessible communication, supported decision-making, procedural fairness, review rights and risk assessment.

8. Delay any new eligibility test until foundational and mainstream supports are fully designed, funded, available, enforceable and independently evaluated.

9. Require genuine co-design with people with disability, families, representative organisations, Support Coordinators, advocates and providers before changes of this scale proceed.

10. Require a full human rights, safeguarding, carer, gender, rural and remote, First Nations and provider-market impact assessment before major legislative changes are enacted.

The long-term sustainability of the NDIS is an important policy objective. However, sustainability must be pursued in a way that protects individualised assessment, participant safeguards, transparent decision-making and access to reasonable and necessary disability supports.

The Bill, in its current form, risks reducing those protections.

We urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill not proceed without substantial amendment and further consultation with people with disability, families, advocates, Support Coordinators and providers.

Brave is kind

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1653

Meryl

Helping Humans Thrive Meryl Klimczak (she/her)

Founder, NDIS Specialist & Support Coordinat or

P: 1300 WONDER (966 337)

My work days are Monday to Friday. If your query is urgent please contact 1300 WO NDER (966 337).

Opportunity for Generosity Pty Ltd T/A The Wondering Wattle. NDIS Organisation ID: 405 012 2586

This email comes to you from unceded Peramangk Country. I acknowledge the traditional custodians of these lands and pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging for they hold the wisdom and truths of custom and culture.