Submission 1733
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs – Legislation Committee Sussex Street Submission June 1st, 2026 - Written for Sussex Street by Joharna Wynaden and Azeem Lamat. The proposed NDIS reform is presented as a cost-saving measure necessary to guarantee long-term sustainability of the Scheme. There’s no doubt about its importance being an essential policy objective but we believe these impacts can’t be fully assessed solely through expenditure or participant numbers alone.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1733
The reforms expand evidentiary requirements, increase reliance on functional assessments, narrow categories of funding and place greater emphasis on participants navigating review and reassessment processes. At the same time, they assume that participants who lose access to dividualised supports will be able to rely on broader community –orthat everyone’s\ncommunity looks the same.The referral to foundational services issimilarly insecure: urban located,market drivenand therefore inconsistently available.OrliketheThriving Kids programwithan operational date well intothefuture. If we reconsider AIHW dataparticipantswill berequired tonavigate multipleservice systems simultaneously while also meeting theevidentiary anda dministrative requirementsnecessarytoobtain support.Reforms thatecrease thoserequirements risk creating barriersfor preciselythose people most likely torely uponthescheme.
Functional Capacity to exclude “as far as possible” a person’s environment The bill would direct apersontobe assessedby their functionalityandindependentoftheirenvironment.T he first part oft his problem lies with assumption tha tperson sdisability canbeassessed purely through whattheycananda nnot do. Returntocreationo fNDIS an its alignmentwit hAustralia’ sobligations underUnited Nations Conventionon Rights o Persons wit Disabilitie.sThe reforms are at odds w ithexpress principletha tdisabilityarises not solely from impairment butfrom interaction betweenimpairment and environmentalbarriers.This paper has already discussed connectionsbetween disability, housing,family violence
andreother marginalised spaces.Functional capacity is product ofinteraction betwe ena pers onandtheir environm ent.T wopeoplew itheadentical disabili ty willdemonstrate differences infunctionalcapacitywhenone livesinmetropolitian Perth the otherina remote indigenous community.A significant concernalso arises relation psychosocial disabilities.Itour experience thatclientwith fluctuating capac itymayreturn differing assessments depending ont heircapacit yat time assessment.In thesecircumstances lack regard surrounding circumstances prejudices client based manifestation disability.Anotherconcernrelates amendmentsection 24an d5disable rrequire ment rules.To meet access to NDIS individualwould need demonstrate they had trialled all appropriate treatment evidencebased expectedmaterially improveimperiance regular undertaken or performed Australia.Theamendment now statesthattreatment may still be consideredappropriate even ifindividual’s geographicalor financial status would prevent them accessing this treatmen t. This change materially
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1733
The disadvantages already existing intersections marginalisation. The “appropriate treatment” individual from remote indigenous community has markedly different accessing an individual wealthy family metro Perth even if “appropriate treatment” was in Sydney. Accessing NDLS clinical report diagnoses understandable case However removing context people’s circumstance disproportionately affects most vulnerable established clear promise: People disabilities should able live ordinary life access choice control equal participation society proposed change fundamentally risks creating two-tier system people disabilities Only who can afford pay toll get access they need and cannot have go without.
Evidentiary gaps
Reforms will four things relating standard evidences required:
- An increase use standardized assessment process
- Increased reassessments
- Increased scrutiny claims
- Increased requirement documentary evidence general starting point that hinges existence disability participant’s ability prove through administrative processes same problem discussed elsewhere paper assumed level stability many with disability do not have assumes regular GP specialist clinicians reliable transport stable housing financial resources metropolitan based living high speed internet connections Under these proposed changes also capacity organize appointments obtain reports comply deadlines those assumptions reflect reality Assessment measures rely heavily risk failing capture fluctuating episodic conditions particularly concerning participants whose support needs vary significantly over time For example, a participant experiencing fluctuating psychosis may be unable to obtain specialist evidence within required timeframe despite continuing significant disability In circumstances this support reduced withdrawn
Loss of Support before Replacement Systems Exist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill Submission
Submission 1733
Our clients are already expressing concern over the fact that their family members have had their support removed without intended systems existing. For example: in March 2026, neurodivergent infant was removed from scheme directed join Thriving Kids program scheduled start October 2026. At this point time there no information for families about how where attend situation even more difficult remotely located towards programme. other families reporting uncertainty what services will be available reforms implemented our concern not theoretical. Participants Families being asked make decisions clear information replacement services exist operate accessed importantly they require do access advocacy support.
Automated Decision-Making The proposed reforms significantly expand role data standardised assessments administrative decision-making NDIS automated work aligning input attributes such quality timing receipt completedness help place this information in standardized framing accordance with algorithms Ultimately means circumstances fit neatly into matrix accurately assessed complex way looking at it automation process alters disability interpreted therefore assessed translated admin outcomes Example, assessments participants fluctuating capacity trauma histories acquired brain injuries co-occurring conditions or highly individual support may picked up algorithmic tools inadvertently excluded definition Reforms also increased emphasis participant’s ability engage life administration (correspondence understanding decision making processes navigate review pathways) contains raft assumptions literacy of technology and respond legal drafting absence training Automated decision-making raises procedural fairness concerns
Participants find correspondence challenges especially so reasoning embedded within algorithmic tools If unable identify the assumptions speak to used generate a those rights become theoretical Unchecked executive power
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1733
The proposed change to social, civic, and community participation (SCCP) is deeply troubling for several reasons. Social, civic, and community participation supports exist to ensure that people with disability are afforded choice and control in how they can participate in their local community. Reducing this support does not remove the need people have for connection; rather, it serves to isolate people with disabilities, leaving them more vulnerable for abuse or exploitation as SCPs provide access beyond just going out for a coffee—medical appointments, shopping, basic needs included. A blanket 50 percent reduction affects far more than mere community access: it impacts medical care, daily life necessities directly linked through consistent support workers who build trust over time but may be unable to retain due reduced funding. This disengagement often leads providers to withdraw services when clients cannot afford ongoing costs of support provision even after years where such reliance on same service has been critical especially within remote communities where one provider’s absence means loss both home safety dignity versus no-one at all providing these essential connections.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1733
participants lose access to supports in the numbers contemplated by these reforms we will see a correlated increase, a shift towards disability services, emergency departments and mental health services. We are already increasingly assisting people only after a problem has reached crisis point because earlier support was unavailable. Our organisation is under immense pressure. Our state disability discrimination service has a ten week waitlist and is currently only accepting matters involving access to education and access to employment. Our NDIS Appeals Advocacy waitlist has been closed for a number of months. We are not equipped to deal with the weight of people impacted by these reforms. This does not mean that people will just stop – they will continue to present elsewhere in crisis. The resulting cost to the broader service system may ultimately exceed any savings generated through reduced NDIS expenditure.
Removal of the right to review It is well known that the NDIA regularly underfunds new participants of the NDIS. We have heard this from participants and NDIA delegates for years. We have been told that this because new participants often haven’t accessed supports before and it has not been established the level of support they need. The proposal for “plan renewals” is thus likely to disproportionally disadvantage new participants to the NDIS.“Plan renewals” will create a new“old framework plan” when a participant’s current plan ends that is identical to their previous plan.The key difference for this as compared to the current method is that the newly created plan under the “plan renewal”methodisnotreviewable.If you wish toreviewareviewabledecisionwiththeNDIS, youhave90daystolodgeaninternalreview.Undertheproposed“plannerenewal”frameworkifaplanisanewedandisonotsuitable,youneedtohaverevieweditwithin 90 daysoftheonoriginalplan.Thisisepeciallyconcerningfornewparticipantsasitismeansthata person with disabilitywill
- Engage wit appropriatesupportspertheirNDSIiplan
- Trialsupportss
- Identify ifthesupportsarenott sufficient
- Acquireclinicalreportsexplainin whytheycurrentsupporthlevelsisinsufficient Completeando internal review All within 90 daysof receiving NDIs access Thisalsoassumingthatpersondisabilityhascapacityliteracy,NIDS literacy,digitalliteracy,cognition,andtimetocomplete Once provideravailabilityclinician availability and quality of services are considered factors;above review process only becomes more difficult. Cliniciansandservice providerscurrently draft end year reports used in plann reassessmentsastheyrequireayear engagement track identify changed needs Only allowing new participants 90dayscollate
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1733
evidence necessary to receive additional support would be devastating. This change could lock people into inadequate plans for years with no right to review.
Conclusion
We urge the Committee to carefully consider whether the proposed reforms are capable of achieving their objectives without reducing the practical accessibility of the Scheme for the people it is intended to support. Throughout this submission we have identified concerns regarding the treatment of functional capacity, increased evidentiary burdens and the growing role of automated decision-making.Each of these issues raises the same underlying question:whether participantswillbeableto access, understandandexercisetheir rights withinthereformedScheme.And,wetheretheparticipants will actually b evisible.We note th elimited consultation timeforthissubmission.Thereareanumberofconcernswe were not abletosexpanduponduetothis.Wea lso ask themCommitteetokeepinmindthatanyreform that increasesthe complexityo faccessingsupportislikelytolayhavethegreatestimpactonthoseleastequippedtometeenthose demands.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1733
Sources Cited
- Pamela Herd & Donald P Moynihan, Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means (Russell Sage Foundation, 2019)
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, People With Disablity In Australia Web report(Report Date : February , Year : 2024) https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia. Explanatory memorandum,[National disability insurance scheme amendment Securing The Ndis For future generations bill](Bill No.:2026)(Date Of Release : March 8th year 2026)