Submission 1884

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Publication: My name must be kept private, but my submission may be published on the inquiry webpage

This submission reflects my experience as a participant, plan nominee and informal support with experience of physical disability, autism spectrum disorder level 3, intellectual disability and psychosocial disability.

I fully support the objective of making the NDIS sustainable long-term. However, I cannot in good conscience support this Bill in its current form. There are multiple matters that, I believe, the Committee should consider amending before passage.

The ridiculously short timeframe for responses to this Bill means I may have made errors after trying to read and understand hundreds of pages of the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum.

In its current form, I do not see how this Bill will, in actuality, save the taxpayer money. This is because other community resources will bear the financial burden of meeting the needs of vulnerable participants who lose supports. This will show in increased use of the following: police callouts for the mentally unwell, ambulance calls, emergency department presentations for both participants and informal supports (the latter due to health complications from carer burnout). It appears that the costs will be shifted to other publicly funded services but ultimately still borne by the taxpayer. If, as predicted by many, there are serious harms that result to individuals from this Bill and community pressure results in yet another Royal Commission, that too will be a huge expense for the taxpayer.

Other cost-cutting measures, unfortunately, are not palatable for either MPs or Senators, and I am referring to a reduction in entitlements for both existing and former MPs and Senators. Although unpopular with yourselves, it is something that soundly resonates with the electorate, who are exhausted from having multiple governments tell them they must lose access to services while the government itself does not address its own use of finite resources.

Please note that my concerns have not been listed in order of importance.

(s 9B) The functional capacity test

This test revolves around assessing the ability to complete an activity without assistance from others/technology and excludes the impact of a participant’s environment and personal situation. This is not how disability works, as multiple impairments cannot be separated.

Submission 1884

example, an intellectual disability shapes a person’s understanding of their world, and their physical disability shapes their mobility.

Alternative – Postpone the implementation of this test until it has been appropriately designed, consulted on, and piloted.

(s9B) Eligibility being reconsidered with the introduction of a new “functional capacity” test (described in section 2).

Alternative – Delay the introduction of this test until the above has been completed (co- design, consultation and a pilot programme).

(s 20(2)(a)) The change of the timeframe for an access decision

This blowout from 21 days to 90, like the unscheduled reassessment timeframe, puts vulnerable people at extreme risk while waiting.

Alternative – Do not change from the existing 21-day timeframe.

(s 25A) All appropriate treatment must be tried first, regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.

This is in complete disregard for the multiple barriers that those with disabilities face in accessing treatment. For example, a treatment is available in another geographical location, but the participant’s disability prevents them from being able to safely travel there. Those in remote areas will be disproportionately affected, as will those with intellectual disability who will not be able to navigate systems to determine if other treatments exist. The bill mentions that treatments will be those that are expected to “materially improve” impairment.

Alternative – That the bill is amended so that a participant’s circumstances/barriers that restrict access to treatment must be considered. Additionally, the term “materially improve” must be defined.

(s 25B) Automatic exclusion due to compensation schemes

Any impairment caused by a motor-vehicle accident or workplace injury for which a compensation scheme exists to cover it will be excluded. This fails to acknowledge whether the compensation scheme actually covers the necessary supports. No consideration is given if the injury and payout were decades ago, and the payout was used to purchase a disability accessible home.

Submission 1884

Alternative: An amendment to reflect that this can only be applied when the compensation actually pays for the participant’s supports.

(s 33(2EA)). The Minister can also cap any support, for any cohort, at any time

This is extremely dangerous as it overrides the Delegate’s interpretation of reasonable and necessary without any consideration of the risk matrix.

Alternative – remove this dangerous option entirely and allow individual consideration following consideration of the risk matrix.

(s 34A). The Minister can cut a plan by legislative instrument, with no review

I note the first cut is for social and community participation, phased in from 1 October 2026 as plans renew and that the same power can apply to any support category to any level in future.

Many participants will be at risk of harm as a result of social isolation, as social and community participation funding is what keeps them in the world outside their home. It enables them to access supports and also allows others to be able to check on their welfare, particularly if living in a SIL and being mistreated.

Alternative – that any reduction can only be preceded by mandatory consultation with the disability community; that affected participants retain their rights for review of the decision, and that the risk matrix must be considered for the participant concerned by the Delegate before implementation.

(s 34(1A)) To ensure “value for money”, cheaper comparable supports are demanded

There is no safeguard to ensure that the cheaper comparable support achieves the same outcome.

Alternative: A comparable support must be defined and must achieve the same outcome as the support being compared.

(s 34(1)(aa)). The “whole of person” approach is being narrowed

With the change of wording – the addition of “directly”, supports will only be eligible if the need is directly related to a qualifying functional impairment. Where is the consideration for the interaction of people’s disabilities, e.g., physical and psychosocial, or psychosocial and intellectual disability?

Alternative – Please restore the whole of person approach from the 2024 amendments.

Submission 1884

(s 34(1E)–(1F)) “Effective and beneficial” now demands peer-reviewed research

This is dangerous as missing research could result in a veto. Many rare conditions do not have much research due to the funding constraints associated with them. Novel or customised treatments may not have a research base but be highly effective for a participant. The hierarchy of consideration puts treating professionals’ clinical experience in (d).

Alternative: Amend s 34(1E) so that “lived experience of the participant” and “clinical experience of treating practitioners with the participant” must be a mandatory consideration and given equal weight to peer-reviewed research. Do not allow the absence of peer- reviewed research to operate as a veto when other categories of evidence support the participant.

(s 34(1)(g)) The need to consider whether support can be more appropriately provided by another system.

The CEO can now deny support that meets the reasonable and necessary criteria on the basis that another system should provide it.

Alternative: The CEO can only refuse to fund a support on the basis that another system should provide it if the participant can actually access said support promptly.

(s 34(1K)) Informal supports are used first, and funded supports are used if certain conditions are met.

This undervalues the choice of use of informal supports and does not consider the dignity of a participant. Is a female participant expected to now have her solo parent father change her menstrual products? This risks participants losing gains of independence in dysfunctional families that benefit from having a family member dependent on them and puts participants in said families in extreme risk.

Alternative 30: Amend s 34(1K) so that the sustainability of the informal supports, the dignity and independence of the participant, especially regarding intimate care and bodily autonomy must be considered.

(ss 40A, 30(1A)) Participants can be subjected to a plan suspension and/or revocation without knowing.

The Bill states that the CEO can do this after “reasonable attempts” have been made to contact the participant. Critically, this is not defined, nor is a minimum time period noted. This is completely lacking in acknowledgement of the stresses of life and the impact that such has on the capacity to engage with communications. For example, a participant with an intellectual disability is hospitalised in the ICU after extremely dangerous brain surgery and then has further hospitalisation on the ward, which results in an admission of many weeks.

Submission 1884

The participant and their supports will be so preoccupied that such communication could be innocently missed.

Alternative - “Reasonable attempts” must be clearly defined and require that said attempts must be documented and have exhausted every possible communication channel, e.g., phone, email, text, post, nominee, support coordinator, with nothing less than a 60 day timeframe after the last contact.

(s 45C) NDIS pricing now sits with the Minister, on Agency advice, through legislative instrument

Alternative – Implement Recommendation 11 from the NDIS Review that it should be done by the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA

(s 48A) Requesting an unscheduled reassessment becomes more difficult.

The change of timeframe from 21 to 90 days for the NDIA to decide could put vulnerable participants at risk and place a burden on the already strained community resources and public health systems.

Alternative: If this is to be retained, there must be consideration given to an Emergency Reassessment process with no more than a 14-day timeframe.

(s 50A) When plans auto-renew, unspent funds are not rolled over

There is no provision made for one-off funding for an item that could still be awaiting delivery, for example, a custom wheelchair that is on order.

Alternative – please amend to ensure that one-off funding for items that have been actioned, quoted or ordered, carries over until the support is provided or claimed.

Schedule 3 Part 2 of the Bill immediately authorises automated decision-making for four sections from seven days after Royal Assent: s 33 (plan content), s 45 (payments), s 45A (claims), and s 45C (pricing). Also, under s 59C(2), the Minister can add more sections by legislative instrument.

The Justice and Equity Centre has written about concerns of ADM and noted parallels to Robodebt. In light of the history with Robodebt, it is extremely concerning that this is being considered before there are legally enforceable safeguards in place.

Alternative: Make the safeguards in s 59E legally enforceable and require human review of any adverse ADM decision affecting a participant’s funding, eligibility or claim before the decision takes effect. Delay implementation until said safeguards are in place.

Submission 1884

Schedule 5 The Minister can modify how the NDIS Act operates for 12 months by “transitional” rule

This is disturbing considering the NDIS community is still subject to the 2024 NDIS Supports Rules that were termed transitional and have been through multiple amendments and are still in force eighteen months later, amended multiple times.

Alternative – Place safeguards on this power by limiting the subject matter to particular issues that require mandatory consultation with the disability community before implementation. Additionally, there should be a specific timeframe, and an appropriate public notification of said transition must be provided to participants, ideally 60 days.

Additions worth considering.

• Add a statutory requirement for an independent review of the changes made by this Bill, to be commenced two years after Royal Assent, and that it must be reported publicly to Parliament.
• Insist that the NDIS be held to any written advice that they provide, as a participant should not have to risk being issued a debt collection notice because they have changed their mind. Participants must have legal protection regarding this.
• There is currently no appeal pathway or means to check before purchase if the NDIA changes their mind. This is very problematic as poor advice is often given by the NDIA Call Centre, Plan Managers, Support Coordinators or LACs. The participant carries a huge risk of being issued a debt notice if the Agency later disagrees. For those with intellectual disabilities, it is particularly worrying.
• Regular transparent reporting on what the scheme is actually doing, otherwise the public cannot evaluate whether it is working as intended. The NDIA must publish the data needed to evaluate that. Examples include, but are not limited to, suspension and revocation numbers and reasons; claim rejection rates; types of rejection rates; participant safety incidents; indications of unmet need (gaps in plans); timeframes for reassessments and access requests.
• There are no provisions to ensure that, as the NDIA becomes a more automated scheme, all participants can access the means of communication that the NDIA uses.
• The issue of Replacement of Supports is still inappropriate. Purchasing a second-hand washing machine for soiled clothing related to disability is “out”, but a regular more expensive laundry/linen service is permissible. This is false economy. This must also be changed to a reviewable decision. It is not uncommon for Delegates to completely misunderstand the reason and purpose of certain items. It is more cost-effective to allow a participant to spend on a “mainstream” product or service that has the same efficacy but at a lower cost.