Submission
Attn: Legislative Affairs Committee Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission:
At strong objection do I make submission against Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026. While supporting long-term sustainability in regard to this NDS, recognizing need effective reform, I oppose reforms weakening participant protections reducing individualisation limiting review rights expanding executive power at expense disabled people.
The changes proposed in this bill are enabling dramatic alteration initial legislation rolled out between years 2013-2024. This rewrite so far original intent principles promise scheme rolled out over period is barely recognisable fear returning us Australia year ago terms disability supports potentially even worse because those systems no longer exist.
Since commencement area self-managed since been a NDIS participant living with Multiple Sclerosis now Secondary Progressive MS condition characterised ongoing neurological deterioration accumulation time significant decline mobility spasticity fatigue capacity undertake activities daily life ability participate socially community reliance on personal care continence management meal preparation domestic tasks safe mobility within outside home use walker mobility scooter wheelchair depending circumstances substantial support needs likely increase over time concerns arise not only from my own experience engaging directly NDIA repeatedly encountered inadequate planning outcomes inconsistent decision-making adversarial processes unnecessary bureaucracy requiring participants fight fairly lawfully assessed first place agency approaches interactions defensive oppositional position rather partner supporting participants background deeply concerned that would entrench expand powers system already fails many participants,
This does secure future of the by improving fairness efficiency integrity instead disproportionately shifts risk onto participants families carers weakens safeguards enables critical matters affecting access essential to be determined broad delegated powers limited accountability reform should focus systemic inefficiencies waste fraud marketplace itself,
I am particularly concerned Bill will move away genuine choice control toward more standardised rationed congregated models support if
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1915
Broad Ministerial Powers and Reduced Parliamentary Oversight
The Bill concentrates excessive power in the Minister and allows significant matters to be determined through delegated legislation. This reduces transparency and weakens democratic accountability. Powers affecting funding, support categories and participant rights must be narrowly confined and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. The interoperability of these powers and other parts of the legislation will have dramatic implications for existing participants.
Recommendation: Introduce guardrails, transparency, and retain parliamentary oversight
Individualised Planning and Reasonable and Necessary Supports
This Bill changes the underpinning Objects and Principles of the act in alarming ways. Section 31 currently contains XXX principles recognising participants as individuals with unique goals, aspirations and support needs. These principles guide the NDIA, reviewing bodies and courts in interpreting and applying the scheme consistently with its purpose and protective intent. The Bill repeals most of these principles. Although some may be relocated, important protections supporting genuinely individualised planning are weakened or removed. The Bill would allow the Minister, by legislative instrument, to reduce funding under s 34A and cap categories of support for cohorts of participants under s 33(2EA), without adequate individual safeguards or review rights. These powers would enable across-the-board reductions or caps to supports already assessed as reasonable and necessary, regardless of individual circumstances. The initial categories identified—social, community and civic participation and capacity-building supports—are not discretionary in my case. They are essential to enable my everyday activities, including attending medical appointments, accessing therapy, travelling safely, and participating in community life.They also provide physiotherapy to help me maintain what function I do have and slow decline, as well as occupational therapy and assistive technology assessments required for home modifications and capital supports.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1915
If these powers are used to reduce ANY category of my supports, I would be placed at risk, forced to go without essential assistance, and likely to experience further decline in functional capacity, independence and mental health. This would increase pressure on informal supports, crisis services and the health system. My informal supports already provide substantial care; additional strain could force them to reduce or leave paid employment, shifting costs to other Commonwealth systems rather than delivering genuine savings.
Recommendation: Section 31 should be retained in full to preserve recognition of participants as individuals and ensure planning decisions are guided by principles that support genuine individualisation. The legislation must include a clear mechanism for exemption or appeal where a participant would be placed at risk by reductions to supports already deemed reasonable and necessary. Section 34A and section 33(2EA) must require mandatory co-design—or, at minimum, consultation with the disability community—and publication of an impact statement before any reduction is made. Affected participants must retain full merits review rights.
Functional Capacity Assessments and Reassessment from 2028
The proposed functional capacity assessments, and large-scale reassessment of existing participants from 2028, risks reducing participants to standardised categories that fail to capture the real impact of disability. Generic assessment tools may not adequately account for fluctuating conditions, progressive illness, fatigue, cumulative impairment, or interactions between physical, cognitive and social barriers. For participants with conditions such as Secondary Progressive MS, a poorly applied assessment could result in underfunding, inappropriate supports, and repeated stress from continually proving established needs.
**Recommendation: Any functional capacity framework must be co-designed with disabled people and relevant experts, allow proper consideration of condition-specific evidence, and not replace individuallized assessment of reasonalelly and necesssary supports. Participants must retaain full review rightswhere assessmets resultin reduced supporst or altered eligibility.
The “All Appropriate Treatment” Testfor Permanence
The proprosed “all appropriate treatment requirement“ n s25A(3) raises serious concerns because itis vague open to interpretation,and my create unfair barriesr fo peoplewith chronic progressveor complex conditons What countsas“appropriate” treatmen can vary depending on decision-makers accesso services affordability an changing medical guidelines It risks pressuring particpants into burdensome low-value or clinically inadequate treatmentsto meet administrative requirements undermining informed consent ant patient autonomy.It may disadvantage peopelwth long-standing condtions who have spent years pursuing treantment optionsan cannot reasonablybe expectedcontinually re-document every intervention For existing paricipants being reassessed these issues are further compounded by concems about NDIA record-keeping nd data integrity Missing historical medica records otreatment
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1915 evidence could unfairly affect participants’ ability to demonstrate they have pursued appropriate treatment, placing an unreasonable burden of proof on individuals with well-established and progressive conditions such as MS.
Recommendation: Amend s 25A so that permanence may be established where appropriately qualified clinical evidence demonstrates that an impairment is enduring, stable or deteriorating, even if not all possible or theoretical treatments have been undertaken. The legislation must make clear that participants are not required to pursue unreasonable, inaccessible, experimental, low-value, or clinically inappropriate treatments. It should also explicitly recognise that treatment is not required where it would not materially alter functional capacity or long-term outcomes.
Automated Decision-Making and Lack of Individual Review
The increasing use of automated processes and algorithmic decision-making is particularly concerning in a scheme that already struggles to accurately reflect individual circumstances. Decisions about disability supports directly affect safety, health, independence and dignity; they should not be reduced to opaque systems that participants cannot understand, interrogate or effectively challenge. A fundamental issue underpinning any move toward automation is the reliability and completeness of the data on which these systems rely. Serious questions must be asked about the accuracy of participant records as they currently exist within the NDIA. Data integrity and records management have long been identified as areas of concern. Participant files may be incomplete, inconsistently categorised, or missing critical documentation. For example, it is unclear whether reports and clinical evidence provided over many years of plan reviews have been properly captured, indexed, and retained in an accessible and usable form. Where evidence has been misfiled, duplicated, or not linked to the correct decision-making processes, there is a real risk that automated systems will operate on an incomplete or distorted understanding of a participant’s circumstances. There are also broader concerns about the use of artificial intelligence systems that operate outside their original or “native” contexts. Tools trained on generalised datasets, or adapted from other administrative domains, may not adequately capture the complexity, variability and nuance of disability. Without careful design, validation and oversight, such systems risk embedding inappropriate assumptions, oversimplifying lived experience, and producing outputs that appear consistent but are fundamentally unsound.
Recommendation: If automation is to be used at all, it must be strictly limited, transparent and subject to robust safeguards. At a minimum, this must include clear disclosure when automated tools are used in decision-making; accessible explanations of how decisions are reached; regular independent auditing of system performance; and rigorous data governance to ensure accuracy, completeness and proper record linkage. Participants must have a clear, accessible right to review and correct their records before those records are relied upon, and all automated decisions must be subject to timely human review and override where necessary, and full merits appeal rights.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill
Automatically Renewed Plans and Non-Rollover of One-Off Funding
Where plans automatically renew, one-off funding—for assistive technology or home modifications—will not carry over. A plan renewal is not a reviewable decision according to the Explanatory Memorandum because renewed plans repeat earlier planning decisions; however, it has new features such as funding periods etc., which might substantially affect participant supports should properly treated with right to review. Recommendation: Amend s 50 A so quoted/ordered before expiry carries until delivered claimed. Include safeguards around Section 31 reviews where reductions already deemed reasonable are placed risk.
Review Appeal Rights
The erosion fundamental safeguard within NDIS raises significant concerns about review rights. Participants must have meaningful accessible effective avenue challenge daily living safety health independence capacity society. Merits review critical protection in system based evidence-based access essential support without robust review incorrect unsafe unfair may persist uncorrected serious irreversible consequences. The weakening section principles together powers reduce cap under provisions such as section 34 (2EA) these changes constrain initial decision-making scope effectiveness reviewing bodies including Administrative Review Tribunal ART similarly constrained. In practical terms this raises that ART will be ‘reviewing limits’ set by diminished legislative framework rather than conducting genuinely independent reassessment what individualised need. If categories of support can capped reduced at cohort level, if decision making weakened principles ability Tribunals remedy unfair inadequate significantly undermined considering existing operation scheme well-established pattern participants succeeding merits review fact substantial
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1915
The proportion of ART (and previously AAT) decisions in favor of participants strongly suggests that the agency has failed correctly at first instance due to incorrect application of legislation. Independent review not only necessary; it functions as an essential corrective mechanism within this system against such background reforms which limit access to reviews may entrench existing problems rather than resolve them.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1915
Conclusion
The Bill as currently proposed poses a threat to fundamental aspects of the NDIS such as personalized care plans; access to fair reviews processes ensuring transparency between service providers and consumers alike. It also puts undue pressure on family caregivers who are already bearing an immense burden due their loved ones’ disabilities without adequate compensation or recognition from society at large.