Submission 1694 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

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

Submitted By

About the Author

is an NDIS provider delivering Supported Independent Living (SIL), Community Access, Capacity Building, and complex disability supports. Our organisation supports participants with a broad range of disabilities including acquired brain injuries, psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, stroke-related disability, dementia, neurological conditions, and progressive or degenerative conditions.

As a frontline provider, we work closely with participants, families, allied health professionals, guardians, support coordinators, and other mainstream systems on a daily basis. This submission is informed by practical operational experience supporting participants navigating the realities of the current NDIS system.

Executive Summary

I support the need for reform within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

There are genuine concerns regarding scheme sustainability, inconsistent decision-making, misuse of funding, administrative inefficiencies, and integrity risks that require attention.

However, I do not believe the proposed legislative changes appropriately address the underlying causes of these issues.

The proposed reforms appear heavily weighted toward cost containment, administrative control, and restricting access to supports, without sufficient consideration of the real-world impacts these changes may have on vulnerable participants, families, providers, and frontline systems.

While stronger safeguards and accountability are necessary, many of the proposed changes risk:

• reducing participant safeguards and review rights;

• limiting flexibility to respond to rapidly changing support needs;

• increasing pressure on already under-resourced mainstream systems;

• creating further barriers for vulnerable participants;

• shifting costs into hospitals, crisis systems, aged care, and emergency services;

• and undermining the person-centred intent of the NDIS.

This submission outlines several key concerns regarding the proposed legislation, including:

• restrictions on reassessments and urgent support changes;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

• the narrowing of supports to only those “directly arising” from eligible impairments;

• expanded ministerial powers to reduce funding;

• concerns regarding functional capacity assessments and standardised thresholds;

• limitations to procedural fairness and review rights;

• the practical impact on participants with progressive and degenerative conditions;

• increasing administrative burden;

• and the lack of adequate investment in mainstream systems before responsibility is shifted away from the NDIS.

The NDIS absolutely requires reform. However, reform must strengthen the system while maintaining participant safety, fairness, flexibility, and meaningful safeguards.

1. The NDIS Requires Reform, But the Proposed Approach Is Concerning

I acknowledge that the NDIS is facing significant sustainability pressures and that stronger safeguards and clearer operational boundaries are required.

There are examples of inappropriate claiming, inconsistent practice, and misuse within parts of the sector that should be addressed.

However, many of the current integrity concerns do not arise solely from deliberate misuse.

A significant proportion of the confusion and inconsistency within the NDIS is driven by:

• unclear operational guidance;

• inconsistent NDIA decision-making;

• lack of transparency regarding approved supports;

• poor communication between systems;

• and the absence of clear boundaries around what the NDIS is intended to fund.

Providers are frequently expected to deliver supports with very limited information regarding:

• what the participant gained access to the scheme for;

• what impairments have been assessed;

• what supports have actually been approved;

• what recommendations underpin the funding;

• and what outcomes the funding was intended to achieve.

In many cases, providers are simply given goals and funding amounts without meaningful context.

This contributes directly to inconsistency across the sector.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

If the government is serious about improving integrity and sustainability, there must be significantly clearer guidance, improved communication, and greater transparency regarding how plans are intended to be used.

2. Concerns Regarding Restrictions on Reassessments and Support Flexibility

One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed legislation is the tightening of reassessment criteria and restrictions surrounding changes to participant supports.

While safeguards against unnecessary reassessments are reasonable, the proposed legislative changes appear to underestimate the realities of progressive, fluctuating, acquired, and degenerative disabilities.

Increasingly, providers are supporting participants entering the NDIS following:

• strokes;

• acquired brain injuries;

• dementia diagnoses;

• neurological conditions;

• psychosocial disability;

• and other complex health-related disabilities.

In many of these situations, support needs can deteriorate rapidly and often unpredictably.

Changes can occur over days or weeks, not over long predictable periods.

The current system is already slow and difficult to navigate during periods of significant change.

The proposed restrictions around reassessments and tighter controls on increasing supports create a very real risk that participants will be left without adequate supports during periods of rapid deterioration.

Another significant concern is the practical impact that fixed funding periods and reassessment restrictions will have on participants whose needs escalate unexpectedly.

In practice, providers may identify that a participant urgently requires:

• increased supervision;

• additional staffing;

• behavioural support;

• swallowing-related assistance;

• mobility assistance;

• transport changes;

• overnight support;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

• or increased personal care.

However, under the proposed framework, there may be no mechanism to urgently increase funding to safely provide those supports until reassessment processes are completed.

This means that participants may experience periods where their support needs have clearly increased, however the funding simply is not available to safely respond.

This is deeply concerning from both a safeguarding and clinical risk perspective.

Without the ability to rapidly respond to deteriorating circumstances, participants are at increased risk of:

• hospitalisation;

• falls and injury;

• behavioural escalation;

• carer breakdown;

• homelessness;

• avoidable admissions into residential aged care;

• and increased involvement with emergency services.

Delays in providing appropriate supports do not reduce costs overall. In many cases, they simply shift costs into hospitals, health systems, crisis services, aged care, and emergency responses while significantly reducing participant safety, dignity, and quality of life.

A sustainable NDIS must retain flexibility to respond quickly when a participant’s circumstances significantly deteriorate.

3. Concerns Regarding Functional Capacity Assessments and Thresholds

The proposed introduction of formalised functional capacity definitions and standardised assessment thresholds raises significant concerns.

Disability is highly individualised and cannot always be accurately captured through rigid functional testing.

This is particularly concerning for participants experiencing:

• fluctuating conditions;

• psychosocial disability;

• trauma-related presentations;

• acquired brain injuries;

• cognitive impairments;

• and progressive neurological conditions.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

There is a risk that standardised assessment processes may fail to adequately reflect the real-world functional impacts participants experience day to day.

Participants should not be disadvantaged by overly simplistic assessment models that fail to recognise the complexity and variability of disability.

4. Restricting Supports to Needs “Directly Arising” From Eligible Impairments

The proposed requirement that supports only relate to needs “directly arising” from impairments that meet disability access requirements is another major concern.

In practice, participants rarely experience disability in neatly separated categories.

Many participants experience overlapping and interconnected impacts from multiple conditions, comorbidities, trauma, psychosocial disability, health conditions, and behavioural complexities.

The proposed changes risk creating an overly narrow interpretation of support needs that fails to reflect the realities of disability and support provision.

This may result in participants losing access to supports that are essential to maintaining safety, functioning, and community participation.

5. Reduction of Procedural Fairness and Review Rights

I am deeply concerned about proposals that reduce review rights and increase the ability for funding restrictions or support reductions to occur without adequate procedural safeguards.

People with disability should have accessible, transparent, and fair review pathways.

Many participants are highly vulnerable and do not have the capacity, advocacy, or financial resources to navigate complex appeals systems.

The proposed changes risk creating significant power imbalance between participants and the system.

This is particularly concerning where decisions may directly impact a participant’s housing stability, safety, supervision, behavioural supports, or ability to remain safely within the community.

6. Mainstream Systems Are Already Under Pressure

The proposed legislation appears to place increasing emphasis on mainstream and state-funded systems taking greater responsibility for supports.

While clearer boundaries between the NDIS and mainstream systems are necessary, this approach cannot succeed unless those systems are properly funded, resourced, and operationally capable of responding.

Currently, providers and families are already experiencing significant gaps between:

• disability systems;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

• health systems;

• mental health services;

• housing services;

• justice systems;

• and aged care.

Participants are frequently left caught between systems arguing over responsibility while urgent support needs remain unmet.

Reducing NDIS responsibility before foundational and mainstream supports are properly established risks leaving vulnerable people without access to any effective support system.

7. Waste Created Through Repeated Reporting and Administrative Burden

There is also significant waste occurring through repeated reassessments and unnecessary report requests.

Participants with permanent and lifelong disabilities are repeatedly required to obtain expensive allied health reports to continue receiving supports for conditions that are not expected to improve.

This creates unnecessary emotional, administrative, and financial burden on participants, families, clinicians, and providers.

Reviews should focus on whether supports remain appropriate and whether circumstances have changed, rather than repeatedly requiring evidence for permanent disabilities that have already been established.

There is also increasing administrative burden being placed on providers across the sector.

Many providers are spending increasing amounts of unpaid time attempting to navigate unclear systems, inconsistent operational guidance, and growing compliance expectations.

This contributes directly to workforce burnout, provider instability, and reduced service availability.

8. Economic and Workforce Contribution of the NDIS

The NDIS is not simply an area of government expenditure.

The scheme contributes significantly to:

• employment growth;

• regional economies;

• workforce participation;

• preventative healthcare outcomes;

• reduced hospital admissions;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

• and community inclusion.

Many participant budgets are already significantly underutilised, not because participants do not require support, but because:

• workforce shortages exist;

• services are unavailable;

• participants cannot navigate the system;

• or participants do not fully understand how their plans can be used.

This broader context must be recognised when discussing sustainability.

9. Consultation Timeframes and Sector Engagement

The consultation and submission timeframe surrounding these proposed legislative changes has been inadequate given the scale and significance of the reforms.

The proposed changes have the potential to fundamentally alter the operation of the NDIS and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians.

Participants, families, providers, clinicians, and advocates have not been given sufficient time to properly review, understand, and respond to these changes.

Meaningful reform requires genuine consultation and collaboration with the people directly impacted.

Recommendations

I respectfully urge the government to:

1. Retain accessible and transparent review and appeal rights for participants.

2. Maintain flexibility for urgent reassessments and rapid support changes where participant circumstances deteriorate.

3. Improve operational guidance and transparency regarding what participants are funded for.

4. Reduce unnecessary reassessment and reporting requirements for permanent disabilities.

5. Ensure progressive and degenerative conditions have expedited reassessment pathways.

6. Increase investment in mainstream and foundational supports before reducing NDIS responsibilities.

7. Ensure any functional assessment models appropriately account for fluctuating, psychosocial, cognitive, and progressive disabilities.

8. Ensure safeguards remain focused on participant safety and wellbeing, not solely financial sustainability.

9. Work collaboratively with participants, providers, clinicians, families, and advocates before implementing significant legislative reforms.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1694

Conclusion

The NDIS absolutely requires reform.

However, reform must strengthen the system while maintaining participant safety, fairness, flexibility, and meaningful safeguards.

The proposed legislation contains several measures that risk creating unintended harm for vulnerable participants, particularly those with progressive, fluctuating, complex, or rapidly changing support needs.

A sustainable NDIS should not be achieved by restricting flexibility, reducing safeguards, or shifting vulnerable people into crisis systems.

The focus of reform should be on improving outcomes, increasing clarity and consistency, strengthening safeguards, reducing duplication between systems, and ensuring participants continue to receive fair and equitable access to appropriate supports.

I urge the government to reconsider aspects of the proposed legislation and undertake broader consultation before proceeding with reforms of this magnitude.

Sincerely,