Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted by: Jarrod Sandell-Hay Date: (\text{May}~{}^{th}; {1}{6}, ~{{ }{}}^{{{ }}{{}}} {{}}{{}{ {}{ }}}}_{}

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

Table of contents

• Table of contents – Page number not specified.
• Executive summary –– Page Number Not Specified.
• Primary recommendations –– Page Number Not Specified.
• Risk assessment summary —–Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 1: Broad funding reduction powers —— Why this is high risk ––––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 2: Social and community participation may be treated as optional —––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 3: Narrowing supports to needs arising directly from eligible impairments –––––Example of risk ————Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 4: Tighter reassessment rules may leave people unsupported in crisis ———–Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 5: Plan suspension and revocation for being not contactable ———––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 6: Access changes before replacement supports exist –––––––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 7: Cost-shifting to state and territory governments —————Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 8: Mandatory registration and personal care —————––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 9: Automated decision-making ––––––––––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Risk 10: Increased administrative burden on participants and self-managers –––––––––––––––––Page No.: [Not Provided]
• Human rights concerns ——————————Five examples of how the Bill may impact the UNCRPD framework –––––––––––––––––––––––––– Page Number Not Specified.
• Consultation concerns ––––––––––––––Page Number Not Specified. Conclusion ———Page Number Not Specified. Appendix: Summary of recommendations Page number is missing.\

Submission 19

Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

Executive summary

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

My position: The NDIS Bill presents an unacceptable level of risk, affecting disabled individuals, participants in the scheme’s network system, families involved as carers or caregivers, workers providing services under this framework; service providers operating within it along state boundaries across Australia’s various jurisdictions; as well as undermining long-term integrity of said program itself. It must be withdrawn immediately! Instead, government should collaborate closely with all stakeholders—disabled persons themselves & their representatives such as First Nations communities, those needing assistive technology like speech recognition software etc., independent advocates acting pro bono to ensure fair treatment throughout proceedings… or else face consequences from public backlash against proposed changes. This legislation does not merely amend existing rules but introduces sweeping new powers enabling reduction of funding allocations, limiting access rights granted initially upon application…etcetera ad nauseam. Many critical aspects remain undefined until further notice which leaves room open for interpretation later on when implementing regulations come into effect post passage through parliament. Thus, passing such a bill without sufficient time allocated beforehand would leave many questions unanswered regarding how exactly these modifications will affect everyday lives of people relying heavily off NDIS support programs daily. Risk is too high! If passed anyway despite warnings raised above then Senate committee process needs extension so that more thorough consultations can occur amongst interested parties including affected groups who might otherwise feel left out due lack thereof previously mentioned opportunities during initial stages where they could voice concerns directly towards lawmakers involved in drafting this particular piece of legislation. The committee should allow additional time: 1) For inclusive community engagement; 2) Public hearings held using accessible formats (Easy English materials); and finally, sufficiently long period wherein general populace gets chance review underlying assumptions behind entire framework being considered by legislature before making final decision about whether or not proceed forward with said proposal at all!

Primary recommendations:

Recommendation #01: The Bill must be withdrawn immediately;

government ought to restart reform efforts only after securing broad-based consensus from various concerned stakeholders as outlined earlier herein… or else risk public outrage against proposed changes leading eventually back onto political stage again sooner than expected…etcetera ad nauseam.

Recommendation#03 : Government should release ALL relevant models prior submission for further consideration, covering areas such as those listed below:

• Who stands likely lose access altogether? Who will see reduced plan funding levels applied instead? What kind of impact does it have on children & autistic individuals alike along other categories like psychosocial disability etc.? How does this change affect overall social inclusion within communities across Australia ? etc., etc. et cetera ad infinitum.

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

• The impact on regional, rural and remote participants;
• Cost-shifting to state and territory systems;
• Workforce and market impacts;
• Expected use of automated decision-making.

Recommendation 4

No power to reduce funding across a support category should commence unless individual safeguards, merits review rights and minimum service guarantees are included in the legislation.

Recommendation 5

No access changes should commence until Foundational Supports, Thriving Kids, state and territory services, and mainstream systems are fully operational, properly funded, independently evaluated and proven to be accessible.

Recommendation 6

The Bill should be amended to protect self-management, direct employment, trusted personal care arrangements, communication rights, and participant choice and control.

Recommendation 7

Automated decision-making should not proceed unless there are strong legislative safeguards, transparent rules, human review, accessible reasons, independent auditing, and a clear right to challenge decisions.

Risk Assessment Summary

This submission assesses the Bill as a high-risk reform package. The Bill carries high risk because it combines several major changes at once:

• Tighter access requirements; - Narrower interpretation of reasonable and necessary supports;- New powers to reduce funding by support category;- Changes to plan renewals and unspent funds;- Tighter rules for participant-requested reassessments;- suspension and possible revocation of plans where participants are considered not contactable; Increased reliance on other service systems; Expanded provider registration and compliance powers; Possible disruption to personal care and self-directed support arrangements; Plan management market restructuring; Record-keeping and claiming time limits; Automated decision-making.Each of these changes carries risk on its own.Totally they create a reform package that could fundamentally reduceaccess to support before replacement systems are ready.The Bill should not proceed in its current form.|No.|Risk area|Risk rating|Why it matters| |-:|–:-:–:—:––:—–:——:—————————– 1 |Broad Funding Reduction Powers ||Extreme||Category-wide reductions may reduce funding below what a participant needs to purchase Supports. |

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

No.	Risk area	Risk rating	Why it matters
2	Social and community participation reductions	Extreme	MAY INCREASE ISOLATION, CARER PRESSURE, CRISIS AND SAFEGUARDING RISK.
MAY FRAGMENT PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE OR INTERACTING IMPAIRMENTS AND EXCLUDE NECESSARY SUPPORTS.
3	Narrow “direct impairment” test	High
TIGHTER PARTICIPANT-REQUESTED REASSESSMENTS HIGH MAY LEAVE PEOPLE UNSUPPORTED WHEN URGENT OR SERIOUS CHANGES DO NOT FIT NARROW CRITERIA.
4	Plan suspension and revocation for non-response	Extremely high may punish people who are unsafe disconnected hospitalised homeless or communication disabled.	May increase isolation carer pressure crisis safeguarding risk May fragment multiple interacting impairments exclude necessary supports Leave unsupported urgent serious changes do not fit narrow criteria Punish unsafe disconnect hospitalized home comm disab. Redirect to Foundational Supports Thriving Kids mainstream systems before those ready Increase on health education housing justice child compensation systems Reduce trusted workers direct employment self management thin market supply poorly designed Make rigid opaque decisions without enough human review accessible reasons Penalise honest mistakes disability-related barriers provider failures
Access changes before replacement systems exist Extreme May redirect people to Foundational Supports,
Thriving Kids
or mainstreemsystems beforereplacement systemsexist Cost-shifting states territories High Administrative burden participants managers Mediumhigh

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

• home modifications;
• other supports that enable people to live safely and participate in community life.

Why this is high risk

A category-wide funding reduction may not account for individual circumstances such as:

• • communication support needs
• • family violence
• lack-of informal supports * rural-and remote-service gaps; thin markets ; cultural safety; safeguarding risks; transport barriers; housing instability; hospital discharge needs; the cumulative impact of multiple impairments .

|Recommendation : |The Bill should remove the power-to reduce-funding-by-support-category.If any-such-power remains , it-must include-individual-assessment,a-clear-safety-test-accessible notice-and-reasons,-merits-review-rights ,-and protections against reducing support below what-is needed-for-safe-and-dignified-living.| | | 5.Risk_2:_Social_and_community_participation_may_be_treated_as_optional A-major-concern_is_that-social-and-community-participation_may-be treated-as less-important-than-personal-care-or daily living_support. This-is-a false_distinction.Social_and_community participation_not_a luxury.It often-the-supporthat enables disabled_people_to: leave_home, maintain_relationships,participate_in culture,_community and_civic_life study_or_work attend_appointments.reduce isolation build independence maintain mental_health prevent crisis reduce family _carer pressure stay_visible_and_connected to_safeguards.Isolation is a safeguarding risk. When_disabled people_are cut_off_from community_the_risk_of abuse_neglect_violence_poor_mental health_carer burnout_and-crisis increases. Recommendation:The_Bill_should not allow broad reductions -to social_and- community_participation funding.Any reform to.community_participation supports must be co-designed_with disabled_people andmust protectpeople who require one-to-one relationship-based communication-aware or trauma-informed-support-toperform safely .

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

Risk 3: Narrowing supports to needs arising directly from eligible impairments

The Bill narrows the link between a participant’s support needs and the impairment or impairments that made them eligible for the NDIS. This creates a serious risk for people with complex, multiple, overlapping or fluctuating impairments. Disabled people do not live in separate diagnostic boxes. A person’s support needs often arise from the interaction between physical, intellectual, sensory, psychosocial, cognitive, communication, chronic health and environmental factors. A narrow direct impairment test may lead to decision-makers splitting a participant into eligible and ineligible parts.

Example of risk

A participant may enter the NDIS because of a physical impairment but also have ADHD, chronic pain, autism, psychosocial disability or a communication impairment. Under a narrow approach, supports connected to those other impairments may be excluded unless the participant can prove they also meet access requirements for those impairments. This may increase disputes, evidence costs and unfair decisions. Recommendation: The Bill should be amended so that reasonable and necessary supports are assessed holistically based on the participant’s real functional support needs and the interaction between impairments environments circumstances.Legislation should prevent decision makers excluding necessary supports merely because persons has multiple impairments complexity disable`

Risk 4: Tighter reassessment rules may leave people unsupported in crisis

The Bill limits when participants can request unscheduled plan reassessments.I recognise need preventing provider driven plan inflation However proposed approach go too far stop people getting support their circumstance change.A participant may urgent extra support due loss carer family violence provider failure hospital discharge mental health crisis housing instability sudden workforce shortages bereavement communication breakdown school exclusion employment changes deterioration informal supports underfunding original plan Not all serious changes permanent not fit neatly Bills categories.

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

Recommendation:

• The Bill should preserve a broad and accessible right to request reassessment where a participant’s support needs cannot be safely met under their current plan. The legislation should include a fast, available pathway for urgent reassessment or interim funding where there is risk of harm,, isolation,,, family breakdown,,,, hospitalisation,,,,,,,, homelessness or loss of essential support.,

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

• people with communication support needs;
• people who require early intervention;
• people who rely on thin or specialist markets.

Recommendation: No access changes should commence until replacement systems are fully operational and independently evaluated. The Government should publish service guarantees for Foundational Supports, Thriving Kids and mainstream systems before any participant is excluded, redirected or removed from the NDIS.

Cost-shifting to state and territory governments Risk 7:

The Bill may reduce Commonwealth NDIS expenditure by shifting demand to state and territory systems.This affects health, mental health, education, early childhood, child protection, housing, justice, public transport, community services, workers compensation and motor accident schemes.Many of these systems are already under pressure.If the NDIS narrows access before other systems are ready, disabled people may be bounced between systems.

RecommendationThe Bill should not proceed until there is public modelling of the expected impact on state and

territory systems. States and territories should not be asked to agree to rules or implementation timelines without clear funding, workforce plans, service guarantees and accountability mechanisms.

Mandatory registration and personal careRisk 8:

Personal care is a high-safeguarding area.It can involve intimate support such as showering, toileting, dressing,menstrual care, transfers, eating, medication prompts and overnight routines.Stronger safeguards may be appropriate.However, mandatory registration of personal care also creates risks if it is not designed carefully.Participants may lose trusted workers.Sole traders and small providers may leave the market.Direct employment may become harder.Thin markets may become thinner.Large providers may gain more control.Participants may be pushed into agency models that are less flexible,less personaland sometimes les safe.Personal care safety is not only about provider registration.Itisalsoabout trustcommunicationconsentcontinuity,cultural safetysrelationshipworker skillthe participant’s abilityto choose who supports their body.

Recommendation Personal care registration mustbe risk-proportionate anda designede t o protect self-directedsupport.The legislation andre l u s h e d shou ld gu aran tee th at se f-m an ag em en ta nd di rect emp loy m ent rem ain ava ila ble , tru st edworkerscantransitionwithoutparticipantslosingsuppor,t re g ist ra tion costsarenotshiftedonto participants,

th inmarketsa r ep ro te c ted,a n dr eg istrat iondoesno td o ne a ba ckdoorre du ctioninc ho iceanda nd co nt rol .

Automated decision-makingRisk9:

The Bill enables automated decision makinginth NDIS.ThisishighriskbecauseNDIS decisionsar een oftenc omplex,personalandcontext-dependent.Evenwhereadecisionappearsadministrativeorobjective therem ayb ein important contextbehindit.Fo rexample, al ate claimmaybecausebydisability,hospitalisation,familyviolenceproviderfailuretechnologybarriers,nomineefailure or communication barriers.Automation can make decisions faster,butspeed is not fairness.

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

Recommendation:

Automated decision-making should not proceed without strong legislative safeguards. At minimum, The Bill should require public disclosure, accessible reasons, immediate human review, independent auditing, disability impact testing, publication of error rates, protection against discriminatory outcomes, and a clear rule that safeguard failures can invalidate affected decisions.

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment In my view, the Bill creates an unacceptable risk of retrogression. Instead of progressively realizing disabled people’s rights, the Bill may reduce practical access to support before alternative systems are available, enforceable or proven to work.

Examples of how the Bill may impact the UNCRPD framework

Independent living and community inclusion

Article 19 of the UNCRPD recognizes the right of disabled people to live independently and be included in the community. The Bill risks undermining this right by allowing broad funding reductions to groups of supports, including supports that enable people to leave home, participate in community life, build relationships, study, work, volunteer and stay connected. Social and community participation is not optional; it often means being part of society instead of isolated at home. If the Bill allows community participation supports to be reduced without individual assessment, disabled people might lose necessary practical support needed under their Article 19 rights.

Equality and non-discrimination

Articles 3 and 5 of the UNCRPD require equality and nondiscrimination. The Bill could create unequal outcomes among individuals with complex impairments due to its focus on needs arising directly from eligible impairments rather than considering them as whole persons experiencing multiple conditions simultaneously. This approach can particularly disadvantage those facing psychosocial disability, cognitive disabilities, communication challenges, chronic illnesses, neurodivergence, coexisting impairments, fluctuating care requirements etc., who should receive appropriate assistance regardless if they fit neatly into NDIA’s preferred legal categories or not.

Participation in decisions affecting disabled people

According to article (4)(3) of the UNCRPD governments must consult closely with & actively involve disabled communities through representative organizations when developing laws/policies impacting these populations. However, many crucial details are left for later rules/laws/assessment tools/etc.; thus leaving disabled citizens responding prematurely before fully understanding reform packages’ designs. Early consultation that involves informed decision-making capable enough altering results isn’t sufficient here - hence withdrawing/redesigning this bill first consulting afterwards is essential instead passing it then seeking feedback afterward which doesn’t work well at all!

Freedom From Violence Abuse Neglect And Exploitation

Article(6)oftheUNCPDmandatesgovernmentsprotectdisabledpeoplefromviolenceabuseneglectionexploitationsomepartsBillpresentedasafeguardingsmeasuresHowever,BillmayalsocreatesnewsafeguardsriskforexamplereducingcommunityparticipationsupportcoordinationtrustedpersonalcarearrangementsplanmanagementchoiceorselfdirectedsupportmakesomesomelessvisibleandsafeThe suspension and revocation provisions especially concerning participant contactability may render them unsafe isolated hospitalized homeless experiencing family violence relying on an unsuitable nominee unable communicate as expected by NDIS Nonresponse should trigger support safeguarding not punishment.

Adequate Standard Of Living Social Protection Progressive Realisation

According to article 28 of the UNCRPD recognizes right adequate standard living social protection Article (4)(2 requires governments progressively realize economicsocialcultural rights using maximum available resources The Bill frames sustainability necessary protect future NDIS But cannot be achieved reducing current disabled people’s practical access strong safeguards If person plan recognises need for support but funding determination reduces money available buy that support, becomes theoretical rather than real Human right exercised in practice meaningful right.

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

Submission Summary:

Recommendation: The Bill should be withdrawn because it presents an unacceptable risk to the UNCRPD foundations of the NDIS. If not withdrawn, it should proceed until there is: An independent human rights assessment led by disabled persons’ representative organizations. The Senate committee must ensure that each major measure protects or improves disability rights rather than merely cutting costs.

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

Submission 19 Personal submission: NDIS Bill risk assessment

The bill risks shifting costs to state and territory systems that may be unprepared while undermining self-management. It also undermines trust in personal support networks, The scheme needs reform but must ensure it’s fairer safer more transparent & based on individual rights.