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

Submission 1908

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

Submitted by: Contact: Date: May 2026 Publication: I consent to this submission being published.

About this submission

I am an NDIS practitioner working in functional capacity evidence, advisory work and support coordination, delivered Australia-wide via telehealth. I hold qualifications in community services and case management, and in mental health, and I am provisionally registered as an MDT Specialist with MTARA. My professional work is informed by substantial lived experience, disability-related advocacy, systems navigation, and direct experience supporting participants and families within the NDIS and broader service systems. I also have experience preparing evidence-based advocacy material for participants, including material used in Administrative Review Tribunal matters.

I also write from lived experience. I am the mother and plan nominee of NDIS participants and have spent many years advocating for people who cannot easily advocate for themselves because of disability, communication barriers, psychosocial complexity, or reliance on others to be heard. The assessment and planning provisions in this Bill are not abstract to me. I have sat on both sides of the table: providing functional capacity evidence, depending on assessments for members of my own family, and standing in for people who rely entirely on others to be heard.

I make this submission because the Bill places functional capacity at the centre of both access to the Scheme and the calculation of participant budgets. That is the work I do, and the system I live within which lets me offer the Committee frontline and lived evidence on how the assessment provisions are likely to operate in practice, and where they carry risk for participants.

I disclose openly that my work includes functional capacity evidence and assessment-related advisory work, which gives me a professional and commercial interest in this area of the Bill. I have framed my recommendations around participant outcomes, and I have deliberately not made any recommendation about who should be permitted to perform assessment work or about the commercial scope of that work. As a practitioner as parent withinghe Scheme, annd as anadvocate, my concernisthe accuracyand fairnessofassessmentforthepersonbeingassessed.

I support long-term sustainability NDIS consistent evidencbased approachfunctionalcapacity My concernsarenotwithprinciple reformbuthow keyprovisionsdrafted substantial detailBill leaves delegated instruments yetto madethissubmissionconfined provisionsonwhich can speak authority.

Summary position

tenrecommendations set out full section 9 In summary: Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS Future Generations) Bill206 Page1

• I support functional capacity, rather than diagnosis, as the basis for access.
• Disability is not uniform; it varies across domains, situations, or days; a single standardized interview conducted by an unfamiliar assessor cannot accurately capture this variability. However: The statutory thresholds defining what constitutes ‘functional capacity’ will largely remain unspecified until later set by Ministers and rules. This leaves communities endorsing gateways whose operational content has yet been defined—these instruments must therefore first undergo disallowance procedures, discussion in consultation forums prior to implementation. Functional Capacity being dynamic & context-dependent requires that standardised assessments allow supplementation through individualized evidence provided directly or via treating practitioners. Concerns exist regarding how assessors should interpret their role when determining eligibility criteria – specifically whether they can exclude relevant contemporaneous data which could alter outcomes significantly. Moreover, there are reservations about using validated tools like version six of the I-CAN administered outside its intended clinical setting without adequate training leading potential misinterpretation and distortion from validation standards demonstrated within examples presented herein. Participants who may be unable themselves due physical limitations or other factors need third-party corroborative information alongside direct self-reporting where possible. Cost considerations suggest mandating assessment shouldn’t burden participants financially while existing high-quality functional records should also be accepted to avoid unnecessary duplication efforts. Finally: The Bill aligns with Australia’s international obligations under CRPD but conflicts somewhat against NDIS Act principles; particularly concerning reduced community participation funding potentially violating Article 19 rights as well social isolation concerns arising thereby necessitating demonstration before proceeding further.

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

Submission 1908

What I support

Centring access on functional capacity rather than diagnosis is consistent with sound assessment practice. Two people with the same diagnosis can have very different functional capacity, annddthe same functional limitation can arise from very different conditions.Assessingwhatapersoncanandcannot doin daily life,ratherthanwhatallabeltheycarry,is themoreaccurateando more equitable basisforaccess.Isupportthisshift.

My concern:a gatewaywithnopublishedcontentThe difficultyis thatthepartsthat determinewhoactuallygetsinarenotinthBill:

thethresholdforsubstantially reducedfunctionalcapacity,theoperative definition,andtheadministrat method.Theyaretosettledafterwards,bytheminer andthroughrules,ontheadviceofagroup notyetconstituted.Inpractice thismeansParliamentandthecommunity arebeingaskto approvethearchitecture ofaccesswithoutseeingthecriteria thattwillbe applied torealpeople.Thisisan significantaccountabilitygap.Wherethesubs tanceofoamajeligibility decisionissleftdelegated instrumentsthoseinstrumentsshouldbesubjecttodisallow ance by Parliament developed throughgenuine consultation witheoplewiddisabilit andtheractitionerswho conductassesments,publishedin draftbeforetherelevantprovisionscommence.The communityshouldabeabletosethegateway beforewalkingthrough it.4 The support needs assessment (Schedule 4) Schedule supports theroll outnew frameworkplanningfrom1April2027.Amongotherthings, it enablesrulestodefinet hebudgetmethodbys referencetothetypeofs upportsandal evellevelsofn edarising fromasupporneedsassessment;requiresthesessmentton identifysupportneeds directlylinkedtol tieimpairment sforwhichaparticipantmeetsaccess;

Underlyingconcerns thatfollowisa singleprinciple:dis ability isnotuniform,andfunctional capacityisononumber. person’s functionalcapacityisp rofilethatvaries acrossdomains, acrosse nvironments ,anfomendays tothenext.Itistypicallyhigherinaquietpredict able,onetoone roomthaninthe unpredictablesettingsofordinarylifeanditshiftswithfatigue stress,whateversupports happen tobe inplace ontheday. Astandardised instrumentdeliveredasa singeinterviewby an assessorthenpersonhasnever met may neverseeagain,captures onepointonthatprofile underconditions thate are themselves unrepresentative.Tha Agency’sonconsultationrecordedcommunity fear ofbeingassessed bystrangers andun familiarsettingands essorchange what apersondiscloseshowthey present.Thisismostacute forpeoplewithpsychosocial disabilitycommunicationd ibilitytrauma historiesorthosewhomask.Noneo thisarguesagainstconsistency. It argues consistency bought at thecost o accuracyisanfalse economy: an assessmentstill hastoberrightforth individualinfrontoft it41 What ana ssessor “must not consider” Froma practitionerandlevedexperience standpoint,the powertospecifybys rulewhatana sssesor mustno tconsiderismostconsequentialprovisioninth Schedule.Afunctionalcapacity Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing theNDISforFutureGenerations)Bill2026Page3

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

Submission 1908

assessment is only as accurate as the evidence it is allowed to take into account. Functional capacity does not present in a clinic room in isolation; it is shaped by environment, fatigue, fluctuation, episodic deterioration, and supports already established. Excluding categories relevant can produce assessments consistent but wrong. This isn’t an abstraction: in my practice I’ve repeatedly seen individuals presenting highly capable during structured interviews unrelated their day-to-day functional capability; at close hand how easily point-in-time impression misreads person masking. a single example makes clear this de-identified composite drawn from practice illustrative doesn’t describe any individual person. classify autistic woman thirties diagnosed adulthood Structured time-limited assessment she presents articulate composed holds eye contact follows conversation answers questions order Standardised observation conducted that setting records her functional intact What snapshot captures cost She masking drawing learned scripts sustained conscious effort cannot maintain predictable one-one interaction days after such experience shutdown unable prepare meals leave house manage routine communication Her capacity unstructured unpredictable everyday environments bears little resemblance presentation of assessment room Evidence exactly kind contextual material must consider rule could set aside favour indoor observation: own account post-interaction shutdown fluctuations support diary reports people see daily Result would be women recorded far more capable than they are funded accordingly Masking well documented particularly among autistic women girls ways standardised assessment understate impairment It rare edge case do suggest structure evidence inappropriate consistency legitimate aim But ‘must not’ rule should never exclude relevant current functional about being assessed If certain excluded participant told what was why able seek review exclusion The same provision carries even sharper risk participants significant cognitive or communication disability. The masking example concerns someone who can mask too well; many I have advocated over years face opposite problem They convey their at all depend entirely others for them contemporaneous third-party family, support workers and treating practitioners is supplementary often only accurate exists Rule excluding it silence very least object least to seek result 42 proposed instrument administers power Schedule Agency licensed Instrument Classification Assessment Support

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

Submission 1908

Needs (I-CAN), version 6, as the basis for the new support needs assessment, to be conducted as an in-person interview by trained, accredited assessors with participants aged 16 and over. That is a category the Schedule 4 power would allow to be defined without requiring clinical training.

I support a strengths-based, internationally grounded instrument in principle. My concern is how,

andby whomit istadministeredThe ICANS validation has been built over many yearswith allied health professionals administering it,and IAMnot aware of any published evidence establishing that it produces valid resultsinthe handsofassessorswithoutclinicaltrainingUsinga validatedinstrumentoutside the conditions under which it was validated does not carrythatvalidationwittht. The masking example aboveis there failure this risks Theassessment deliveredasa singleinterview of around three hours Recognisingtha composedarticulate presentation conceals significant impairment tha personismaskingisaclini skills An assessorw ithout it workingfrom one interview will ingood faith record th eparticipantasmore capable than they are anda tterorwill ber carriedb y them instrumentscorestraight into then participant’s budget Thel Agency’s own consultationhas acknowledged that people w ith psychosocial or episodicconditions whose needsn ot easily shown at apoint-in-time intervieware among thoseat greatest risk.I shareaconcern raised bythealliedhealthprofessionals including occupational therapists whobuiltthenstrumentsevidencebase Thisisanot about professional territory Itisthatabout whether these assessmentreaches theright answer for thee npersoninfronto fit 43 Transparency o ftherbudget methodIf a participants budget is to be derived from their support needs asse ssment through ad efined

budgetmethod, theparticulants shouldbe ableto understand howtheir assessedneedtranslatedinto their funded budget andshould have aclear pathwaytos seek review of that translation A funding decisiona pers oncannotunderstand istheycannoteffectively challengeandoneanomineeorguardian cannotchallengeontheirbehalfeither. 5 The costof mandated evidenceUnderthecurrent Schemeparticipantsareroutine ly requiredtob fundclinicalfunctional evidencetheAgency asksforwhetherf romtheirplan outoft heirownpocket Asaparentwithin thescheme Ihave lived thisA reformedassessmentprocessmustnot deepenthatburden Ifasupportneedsassess mentis tobe mandatory itshoulde providedorfunded suchtha ttcost does notfallont heparticipant an dhighquality functional e vidence then participantalreadyholds shou ldb e capableoff being accepted avoidpayingtwice forthesamepictureof aperson’slife.6The weight given toc linicalevidenceTh eschemerequires partic ipantsto obtain clinicalfunctionaleviden ce su chast function alcapacity assessmentsandal lied health treatingpractitioner reports oftenatsignificant personal cost YetthemodelthisBill enablesmovesthedecision steadily furtherfrom thatevidenceAsupport needs assessment administered by a non-clinical assessor may displaceit the power to specify what ana ssessor must no considermay excludei andtheadelgate who makesbinding decision isana administrative decisi onmaker n otaclinicianwhoist norquiredto adoptclini Submission: NDIS Amendment (SecuringtheNDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Page5

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

Submission 1908

recommendations. The system compels individuals to produce clinical evidence but then discounts it significantly due to structured processes designed against genuine need assessment, Automating routine processing can be sensible when decisions are not directly related to access or funding judgments; nonetheless, automated systems translate assessments into budgets without human oversight leading participants further away from understanding outcomes.

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

Submission 1908

those who act for a person to involve them and to give effect to the decisions the person would make for themselves. Under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Bill must be accompanied by a Statement of Compatibility, which the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights examines. A limitation on a protected right is permissible only where it pursues a legitimate objective and is reasonable, necessary and proportionate. The financial sustainability of the Scheme is a legitimate objective. The question the Committee should press is whether these particular measures are a proportionate means of pursuing it: a standardised gateway whose content is not yet written, a power to direct assessors to disregard evidence, automated decision-making, and reductions to community participation funding.

Article 12: legal capacity, will and preferences

Article 12 requires that the will and preferences of the person be respected and, so far as possible, predominate; it drives the shift from substitute to supported decision-making. An assessment model in which a standardised instrument, delivered in a single interview, can displace a person’s own account of their functional capacity, and in which rules may direct an assessor not to consider relevant evidence, runs against that principle. The masking example in section 4 is the concrete case: the person’s lived account is often the most accurate evidence there is, yet it is the evidence most exposed o being set aside.

Article 19: inclusion in the community, and the harm of isolation

Article 19 recognises the equal right to live in and be included in the community, and obliges the State to ensure access to community support services to prevent isolation or segregation. The Bill enables Ministerial determinations to reduce funding for social, civic and community participation.For many participants this is the supportthat makessocial contactpossible at all.Reducingit doesnot make thetheunderlyingneedgo away.It simply leaves thperson isolated.The link between social isolationand poorer health isth among themost firmly establishedin publichealthThe World Health Organization through its Commission on Social Connection has recognised social isolation and loneliness as aglobalpublic health priority people who are lonelyare around twiceas likelytoto experience depression,andisolationisasociatedwith anxiety anda with thoughtsof self-harm Forpeoplew ithdisabilitycommunity settingscan alreadybe harder t o enter ,an dfundedsupportistoften thenlybridgeintothem Withdrawing that supports predictably worsens mental health A measuretha produces a foreseeable he althharminthenam e of an scheme whose own object i sfullinclu sioninthecommunitydemandsthe closest proportionality scrutiny . The Scheme’s relianceon unpaid family suppor tin not ana abstraction In myown livedexperience

Article 5: equality,

nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation Article requiresequalitynon-discriminations and provisionreasonableaccommodation. single standardised instrument applied uniformly can indirectly disadvantage peopleswhose

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

Submission 1908

disability is not well captured in a point-in-time interview, including psychosocial, episodic, communication and masking presentations. Formal equality of process can produce substantive inequality of outcome. The framework should be required to accommodate these differences, not to override them.

Procedural fairness, automated decisions, and the Robodebt lesson

Australian administrative law requires procedural fairness: the right to be heard, to have relevant material considered, and to be given reasons. The NDIS external review pathway now sits in the dedicated NDIS Division of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Bill’s enabling of automated decision-making, in a context where individual human review is not guaranteed, sits uneasily with these requirements. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme warned, in the plainest terms, against automated administrative processes that operate at scale without adequate human judgement and accountability. That lesson applies directly to decisions about a disabled person’s support.

Safeguarding and the participant’s risk profile

The Government cites the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability as a foundation for these reforms. That Royal Commission’s central concern was safeguarding. An assessment that misreads a person’s functional capacity also misreads their vulnerability: the supports holding their safety together, the risks that surface only outside a structured interview, the fluctuations a single sitting cannot see. A model that cannot capture a participant’s real risk profile cannot reliably identify who is at risk, and reform offered in the Royal Commission’s name should not weaken the Scheme’s capacity to see it.

Coherence and consultation

Two final points. A Bill that amends the NDIS Act in ways at odds with the objects and principles that same Act declares invites the question whether the amendments are consistent with the statute’s own stated purpose. And Article 4(3) of the Convention requires States to closely consult with and actively involve people with disability in decisions affecting them; a consultation window of barely two weeks on a Bill of more than one hundred pages has this consequence which makes difficult reconciliation with obligation mentioned above. One thing about process involved here needs be said plainly The number submissions inquiry receives does measure how community feels towards bill Most affected by it exhausted They managing serious disabilities or caring someone who doing so spending little energy getting through day Reading over hundred page long Bill writing Senate committee beyond what many can manage not lack concerned but because system already takes everything they have Low number submission approval It happens when work speaking up left once again few still able represent thousands affected unable do so.

Recommendations

Recommendation: That statutory definition functional capacity access threshold assessment method made disallowable instrument developed through

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 1908

• genuine consultation with people with disability and assessment practitioners, and published in draft before the relevant provisions commence. Recommendation 2: That the assessment framework require: a standardised assessment to be capable of being supplemented bys individualisedfunctional evidence; to considerrelevant evidencetaken fromthe participant and their treatingpractitioners; designedto reflect variation infunctionalcapacity across domainssettings time rather than restingon a single point-in-timepresentation. Recommendation3.: That any rule specifying what an assessor must notconsiderbe incapableof excludingrelevanctemporaneous functionalevidence abouttheparticipant; where evedence is excluded inform theparticipantwhat wasexcludedwhywith arighttosereview. Recommendation4: Where support needsassessment relies on I-CAN or comparableinstrument it administered consistently based on which instrument validatedby assessors clinical skill that validity assumes rules under Schedulenot authorise administration lackingthatskill. **Recommendation5: **Where decision (including automateddecision) departsfromclinical evidece provided byor for th eparticipants, decisionmaker required engage give reasonsdepartureautomated processes determine participants access budget without human clinicallyinformed oversightclinically informed review pathway including accessible meritsreview Administrative Review Tribunal available Recommendation6. : Assessmentframework ensureparticipants cannot report advocate own funcational capacity disadvantaged requiring contemporaneous thirdparty evidence familysupport workersandtreating practitioners considered appropriately weighted. Recommendation7: Any mandated supportneeds assessment beprovidedfunded cost does fall participent existing highqualityfunctional evidencetobe accepted avoid duplication and participant understand how their assessment translated intotheirbudget clear reviewpathway. Recommendation8: Unscheduled reassessment threshold expressly accommodate fluctuating episodic conditions progressive deterioration significant changes in a partipantsupport environment not only measurable change functioncapacity. Recommendation9.: Committee Parliamentary JointCommittee Human Rights satisfy Bill limitations Convention Persons Disabilities particular Article will preferencesArticle 19 inclusion community Article equality nondiscrimination reasonable necessary proportionate; theassessment planning

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

Submission 1908

framework should give effect to objects declared under sections.

Recommendation: No reduction shall occur unless it is compatible per article; otherwise reduce if causes exclusion from society.