NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns regarding functional assessments and environmental barriers impacting NDIS access

‹ PrevPage 1 of 8 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

1 June 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 the long-term sustainability of the Scheme. There is no doubt that sustainability is an important and legitimate policy objective. However, we do not believe the impact of these reforms can be adequately assessed solely by reference to NDIS expenditure or participant numbers.

It is also our position that for those participants who sit outside the construction of ‘typical’ the reform sets expectations that many participants cannot realistically meet. And, ironically for a system created for people with disability, many of these requirements are incongruent with the person’s disability. As Carey, Malbon & Blackwell (Pg 10) write, the scheme requires them “to frame disability and needs in a way which aligns with the scheme.”

Based on our experience in assisting people with disability we believe the risks arise not from the objectives of the reforms but from how they will operate in practice.

A short construction of the NDIS

Carey, Malbon & Blackwell describe the NDIS as a hybrid system of support selection which prioritises participant choice, supported by community, rather than a pure market approach. However, this assumes a neoliberal market fiction: that everyone participating has the same degree of agency in that market. This is not the case. The differing levels of agency, even within an individual, mean that unfettered accessibility to the scheme is limited to only those capable of maneuvering within this system.

This is the central problem with the NDIS reforms; like the NDIS itself it assumes a level of constancy in access to resources, access to urban normativity, health and education. AIHW data demonstrates that people with disability are more likely to experience marginalisation in areas of social disadvantage than people without disability. It is important to foreground this as a baseline problem with the NDIS before exploring the impact of the reforms.

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 individualised supports will be able to rely on broader community – or that everyone’s community looks the same. The referral to foundational services is similarly insecure: urban located, market driven and therefore inconsistently available. Or, like the Thriving Kids program, with an operational date well into the future.

If we reconsider the AIHW data, participants will be required to navigate multiple service systems simultaneously while also meeting the evidentiary and administrative requirements necessary to obtain support. Reforms that increase those requirements risk creating barriers for precisely those people most likely to rely upon the Scheme.

Functional Capacity to exclude “as far as possible” a person’s environment

The bill would direct a person to be assessed by their functionality and independent of their environment.

The first part of this problem lies with the assumption that a person’s disability can be assessed purely through what they can and cannot do. Return to the creation of the NDIS and its alignment with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The reforms are at odds with the express principle that disability arises not solely from impairment but from the interaction between impairment and environmental barriers.

This paper has already discussed the connections between disability, housing, family violence and other marginalised spaces. Functional capacity is the product of an interaction between a person and their environment. Two people with identical disability will demonstrate differences in functional capacity when one lives in metropolitian Perth and the other in a remote indigenous community.

A significant concern also arises in relation to psychosocial disabilities. It is our experience that a client with fluctuating capacity may return differing assessments depending on their capacity at the time of the assessment. In these circumstances a lack of regard to surrounding circumstances prejudices the client based on the manifestation of their disability.

Another concern relates to the amendment of the section 24 and 25 disability requirement rules. To meet access to the NDIS an individual would need to demonstrate that they had trialled all “appropriate treatment” that is evidence based, expected to materially improve the impairment, and “regularly undertaken or performed in Australia”. The amendment now states that treatment may still be considered “appropriate” even if an individual’s geographical or financial status would prevent them from accessing this treatment. This change materially

Submission 1733

The disadvantages faced by individuals who already exist at intersections of marginalisation are profound. The access to “appropriate treatment” available to someone from a remote Indigenous community differs markedly from the access enjoyed by an individual from a wealthy family in metro Perth – even if both receive their care in Sydney.

Access to the NDIS is currently restricted behind clinical reports and diagnoses. It makes sense why this situation exists; however, removing context regarding people’s specific situations disproportionately impacts our most vulnerable populations. Established upon clear promises, the NDIS aimed to enable persons with disabilities live ordinary lives while having choices, control, as well as equal participation opportunities throughout society. These proposed changes risk creating two-tier system dynamics among disabled individuals: Only those capable enough financially can afford necessary tolls for accessing essential supports whereas others without such means must remain underserved.

Evidentiary gaps

These reforms will alter four aspects concerning evidence standards expected from participants:

  • An increase in standardised assessment process usage
  • More frequent reassessments conducted
  • Greater scrutiny applied towards claims made
  • Higher demands placed on documentary proof provided

Generally speaking, entry into programs depends not merely on disability presence but rather participant capability proving said condition via administrative procedures. This mirrors issues previously addressed within these pages - assuming stability levels many disabled folks lack inherently creates challenges. Such assumptions include availability of consistent GPs or specialist clinicians along side dependable transport options alongside stable housing conditions plus sufficient financial resources. Additionally they presume living arrangements centered around metropolitan areas equipped with high-speed internet connections. Under current proposal alterations also expect capabilities related appointment organisation activities obtaining required documentation fulfilling deadlines etcetera which doesn’t align realistically.

Assessment methods heavily reliant standardized metrics might fail capturing fluctuating episodic states particularly problematic when support requirements change significantly over time periods. For instance consider someone undergoing varying phases psychosis potentially unable acquiring specialized verification documents inside stipulated timelines despite ongoing substantial disabilities experienced during this phase leading possibly reduced withdrawn assistance altogether.

Submission 1733

Our clients are already expressing concern over the fact that their or their family members have had their support removed without the intended systems existing. For example, in March 2026 a neurodivergent infant was removed from the Scheme and directed to join the Thriving Kids program, currently scheduled to start on 1 October 2026. At this point in time, there is no information for the family about how or where to attend. This situation is even more difficult for those remotely located and directed towards the program.

Other families are already reporting uncertainty about what services will be available as reforms are implemented. Our concern is not theoretical. Participants and families are being asked to make decisions without clear information about what replacement services will exist, where they will operate, or how they will be accessed. More importantly, they will be required to do so without access to advocacy or support.

Automated decision-making

The proposed reforms significantly expand the role of data, standardised assessments and administrative decision-making within the NDIS. Automated systems work by aligning information; input attributes such as quality, timing of receipt and completedness help place this information within the standardised framing in accordance with algorithms.

What this ultimately means is that those whose circumstances fit neatly into this automated matrix are more likely to be accurately assessed. A more complex way of looking at it is that the automation process alters the way disability itself is interpreted and therefore assessed and therefore translated into administrative outcomes. For example, assessments of participants with fluctuating capacity, complex trauma histories, acquired brain injuries, co-occurring conditions or highly individual support may not be picked up by the algorithmic tools and inadvertently excluded because of definition.

The reforms also place an increased emphasis on a participant’s ability to engage with life administration (correspondence, understanding decision-making processes and navigate review pathways). This contains a raft of assumptions: of literacy, of access to technology and of the ability to respond to legal drafting in the absence of legal training.

Automated decision-making raises procedural fairness concerns. Participants may find correspondence or decisions difficult to understand, let alone challenge. This is especially so if the reasoning process is embedded within algorithmic tools. If participants are unable to identify the assumptions and speak to the algorithms used to generate a decision those rights may become theoretical.

Unchecked executive power

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 will serve to isolate people with disabilities, leaving them more vulnerable for abuse or exploitation. As SCCP is a flexible support, for many participants on the NDIS this isn’t just a support to “go out for a coffee”; it is their access to medical appointments, shopping, and basic needs. A blanket 50 percent reduction does not only affect people’s access to community. The NDIS is built on a neoliberal assumption of equal power that we do not see in practice. If a person’s SCCP budget is reduced by 50 percent, it does not mean that support workers or support provider companies will agree to continue providing service. Many people will lose support workers they have built interpersonal connections and trust with as they simply will not be able to pay them enough to retain them. We have seen for years that when a client is unable to pay a support provider or their funded hours reduce, the provider will often disengage. As people often use the same support workers for their assistance with daily life and other line items, this disengagement is much more than just for SCCP. In remote communities where there is only one provider available this is the difference between having someone who can provide you with safety and dignity in the home and community and having no one.

The proposed method to enact this 50 percent reduction is deeply concerning. This arbitrary power allows the minister to reduce any funding group by up to 99.99 percent on all old framework plans (Per Explanatory Memorandum). The only provision is that the Minister must “have regard” to the safety of participants. This power would allow the minister to choose funding categories and cohorts that they wish to reduce and effectively lock people out of receiving any support. In its current proposal, the minister could, for example, choose to reduce occupational therapy support from participants who have a physical disability by 90 percent. Participants who have this reduction applied to their plan are unable to review this decision, and it will continue to apply even if it means that they would then be funded for an amount less than the cost for 1 hour of occupational therapy. This legislative instrument could lock people out of support that they had been determined to need by the NDIA’s own reasonable and necessary criteria. This power is not reviewable, has no checks or balances other than to “have regard” for the safety of participants and only needs to be for the purpose of “ensuring the financial sustainability of the Scheme” (Explanatory Memorandum). The proposal of this legislative instrument is both concerning for the current proposed reduction to SCCP funding and for the health and safety of all participants on the scheme for the future.

The burden will shift not disappear

One of the biggest concerns we have relates to how these reforms will impact community groups, disability groups and community legal centres. We know that the need does not disappear. We know that in practice it always turns up somewhere else. We believe that if

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” method is not reviewable. If you wish to review a reviewable decision with the NDIS, you have 90 days to lodge an internal review. Under the proposed “plan renewal” framework, if a plan is renewed and is not suitable, you need to have reviewed it within 90 days of the original plan.

This is especially concerning for new participants as it means that a person with disability will need to:

  • Engage with appropriate supports per their NDIS plan
  • Trial supports
  • Identify if the supports are not sufficient
  • Acquire clinical reports explaining why the current support levels are insufficient
  • Complete and lodge an internal review

All within 90 days of receiving NDIS access. This is also assuming that the person with disability has the capacity for literacy, NDIS literacy, digital literacy, cognition, and time to complete. Once provider availability, clinician availability and quality of services are considered as factors; the above review process only becomes more difficult. Clinicians and service providers currently draft end of year reports to be used in plan reassessments as they require a year of engagement to track and identify changed needs. Only allowing new participants 90 days to collate the

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 participants will be able to access, understand and exercise their rights within the reformed Scheme. And, whether the participants will actually be visible.

We note the limited consultation time for this submission. There are a number of concerns we were not able to expand upon due to this.

We also ask the Committee to keep in mind that any reform that increase the complexity of accessing support is likely to have the greatest impact on those least equipped to meet those demands.

Submission 1733

Sources Cited