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

Submission 1716

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry

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

This submission raises serious concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the NDIS Act contained in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. While ensuring long-term sustainability is important, the reforms should not reduce safeguards. narrow access to supports, or undermine its ability to respond diverse realities disabilities. The proposed represents substantial shift toward a centralised and restrictive admin framework with broader government discretion eligibility planning reassessment fund decisions concern reforms place increasing emphasis cost containment standardisation expense individual circumstances participant autonomy transparency procedural fairness Of particular concern likely cumulative impact these changes may have people living invisible fluctuating psychosocial neurological complex disabilities Many participants within groups already face significant barriers obtaining specialist evidence accessing healthcare navigating systems maintaining stable supports The also risks reliance unpaid carers emergency systems under resourced community services by reducing early preventative stabilising supports In practice this contribute hospitalisation housing instability family breakdown social isolation mental health deterioration support needs while shifting pressure onto other public systems that are already overstretched Further arises concerning transparency accountability adequacy consultation undertaken disabled representative organisations Proposed expansion automated data-driven decision-making powers requires stronger scrutiny safeguard ensure participants retain clear reasoning meaningful review rights fair decision making processes Reforms of scale proceed without robust independent comprehensive consultation clear evidence will not disproportionately disadvantage or weaken essential supports protections

Key Concerns

Reduced Flexibility in Participant Planning

The risk reduces plans reflect individual circumstances goals need. A more standardised planning framework fail account wide variation disability affects daily functioning particularly where needs fluctuate over time cannot easily quantified Participants should narrow funding categories complexity lives prioritise administrative efficiency appropriate support Funding Reduction Without Individual Review

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

Submission 1716

The Bill would permit broad funding adjustments linked to financial sustainability considerations rather than individual reassessment of need. This creates concern that participants could experience reductions in supports despite no improvement in their functional capacity or circumstances. Changes of this nature should be subject to strong parliamentary scrutiny, transparent criteria, clear protections against arbitrary decision-making.

Automated Decision-Making

The Bill appears to expand the use of automated systems in areas that may significantly affect participant eligibility, funding, reassessment, and support access. Decisions affecting disabled people should remain transparent, explainable, and subject to meaningful human review. Automated systems can reproduce existing biases and may fail to properly account for complex or non-standard presentations of disability. At minimum, there should be clear safeguards requiring transparency regarding how automated tools are used, what factors are considered, and how participants can challenge decisions.

Limitations of Proposed Functional Assessments

The proposed approach to functional assessment appears overly narrow and may not adequately reflect the lived reality of many disabilities. Functional impact is not always constant, visible, or easily measured through standardised tools.	People with episodic or complex conditions may experience substantial impairment despite appearing capable during short assessments or isolated interactions. Factors such as exhaustion, cognitive overload, sensory regulation difficulties, cumulative impairment, reliance on assistive supports, and the interaction between multiple conditions should be properly recognised.	There is concern that simplified assessment models may disadvantage people whose disabilities do not fit conventional assumptions about impairment.

Treatment Expectations and Permanence Criteria

The revised permanence requirements may place pressure on participants to pursue ongoing medical interventions, therapies, orassessments inorder t oprove eligibilit yor maintain suppor raccess. Thisis particularly concerningforconditionswhere treatment outcomesare uncertain where availableinterventionscarry risks orewher e evidence-based options remain limited.Disabledpeopleshouldnotbeplacedin aposition wheresupportsdependson undergoing unwanted inaccessible financially prohibitive or medically inappropriate treatmen t . Manyparticipantsalsoface major obstaclesobtainingspecialist reportsorthistorical documentationdueto cost workforce shortages geographic location orthe complexityo ftheir condit ions.

Suspensionand Reassessment Processes

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: Securing NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 - Submission No.:1716 Expanded powers relating to reassessment and suspension may disproportionately affect participants experiencing difficulties communication organisation mental health housing stability trauma cognitive functioning. There is concern suspensions could occur because a participant misses correspondence fails respond timeframes temporarily unable engage administrative processes due to disability related barriers. The loss support circumstances can place people at immediate risk destabilise housing healthcare arrangements community participation.

Lack Of Available Alternative Supports The reforms assume participants losing access will rely on mainstream foundational services In practice many health housing mental health service remain inaccessible overstretched inconsistent unavailable particularly regional rural areas Without substantial investment reducing NDIS risks leaving disabled without practical alternatives.

Compliance And Investigative Powers Although preventing fraud scheme important stronger compliance powers must balanced safeguards protect from intimidation overreach punitive administrative practices Disabled with communication fluctuating psychosocial limited advocacy especially vulnerable within highly adversarial systems There concerns that themselves increasingly treated as compliance rather than requiring support.

Recommendations This submission recommends bill not proceed current form Before implementation following steps should occur:

• Meaningful consultation co-design disabilities carers advocacy groups representative organisations;
• Independent review proposed reforms legal, disability rights clinical safeguarding perspectives;
• Stronger transparency accountability requirements automated data-driven decision-making systems;
• Legislative safeguards broad arbitrary reductions in supports individual assessment;
• Preservation of planning genuine involvement all key decisions affecting supports;
• Recognition frameworks fluctuations episodic invisible cumulative disabilities;
• Clear requirement functional capacity assessments conducted informed by appropriately qualified and trained clinicians including occupational therapists OTs specifically training real-world impacts

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

Submission 1716 disability, rather than relying on narrowly standardized or non-specialist assessment\napproaches;

• Protection of bodily autonomy and the right to refuse medical treatment without loss of
  access to supports;
• Strengthening of procedural fairness, accessible communication, advocacy access, and \nreview pathways; and
• Investment in accessible mainstream and foundational supports prior to any decline\nin NDIS eligibility or funding levels. The NDIS plays an essential part in allowing individuals with disabilities to lead safe lives, participate fully within their communities, preserve personal relationships, and prevent crises from occurring.Reforms aimed towards improving this scheme should focus more strongly upon enhancing equity, availability,and stability instead of introducing additional uncertainties and obstacles that could hinder those who rely heavily on these support systems every day.Above all,policy frameworks must prioritize placing respect,safety,dignity,the lived experiences ,of disabled people at heart when making decisions,rather than prioritizing cost reduction as a guiding principle behind reform.