Parliamentary Submission - Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Proposed Legislation

I do not believe the bill should proceed in its current form. At a minimum, implementation should be delayed until meaningful consultation occurs, comprehensive impact assessments are completed, and alternative support systems are properly established and funded. Some particular issues I have with the bill include:

1. Proposed changes to the definition of functional capacity The bill proposes assessing functional capacity without adequately considering the environment and personal circumstances of the person with a disability. Assessing someone’s functioning outside oftheir context is problematic and will likely result in inaccurate assessments and poor funding decisions, which may significantly impact people’s lives.A person’s functioning must be considered in the context of:• who is in their life.•the supports they require to live safely and independently,and•thetheenvironmentinwhichtheylive.Additionally,I strongly believethatonlyappropriatelyqualifiedAlliedHealthprofessionalshavetherainingandsurgicalreasoningskillsnecessarytoperformtheseassessmentsaccurately.Finallyifautomationisconsidereda mechanismtoassistindeterminingfunctionalcapacityandelegibilitythisraisessignificantconcernsandwouldrequirestronghumanoversightandsafeguardingmeasuresbeimplemented2.Proposedchangesactivities“asawhole”Thebillproposesreversingcurrentwholepersonapproachwhichestentlyallows considerationofhowmultipledisabilitiesinteractwithoneanother.For example Ihave many clientswhohave bothAutismADHDItcanbepossibletodetermine whether their difficulties withe socialinteractionareattributablet o Autism ADHD or interaction both conditions In practice cause difficulty less important than ensuring that person receives support required. Proposed changes risk creating artificial distinctions do not reflect lived reality participants3.Proposedtighteningappropriate treatment The bill proposes requiring participantstohavedeptakenall appropriate treatments without adequate considerations: geographic locationand access treatment,

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

Submission 1946

• affordability of treatment, and- a person’s right to choose whether to engage in treatment. Given the current cost-of-living pressures faced by Australians, this is a major concern and should not become a factor that limits a person’s ability to access support through the NDIS.

Changes to plan reassessment timeframesThe bill proposes extending decision-making timelines from 21 days to up to 90 days while also narrowing what is considered exceptional circumstance.In my experience, plan reassessments are generally requested when:

• A plan was inadequately funded initially orA participant’s circumstances changed significantly.Participants shouldn’t be disadvantaged due to initial NDIA deficiencies nor wait three months if their situations require urgent adjustments.While acknowledging necessary savings there could reduce costs more effectively within agency including ensuring plans adequately fund thereby reducing costly reviews section 100s Administrative Review Tribunal matters;Reducing excessive paperwork reporting requirements frequently ignored meaningfully considered;Ensuring adequate staffing training so statutory deadlines met appropriately.Currently participants may urgently request review only receive automatic decline because staff unable assess requests required timeframe This inappropriate fair administrative outcome.Rather than extend timetables detriment participants focus instead improving staffing training administratively efficiency withinagency.### Ministerial powers make blanket changes The proposed mechanisms allow broad changes without proper consideration of individual circumstances Creates significant risks safety independence quality life contribute meaningful society Proposed change represents substantial departure original intent scheme as an individualised model concerned far-reaching impacts onparticipants.

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

Submission 1946

ANTERIS THERAPY Services

Additionally, no single minister, or small group of decision-makers, should hold such broad and largely unrestricted powers to make sweeping changes that significantly affect the lives of so many people.

National Press Club comments At the National Press Club, Mark Butler proposed additional changes that he anticipated may arise following passage of the bill. These included:

• removing approximately 160,000 participants from the scheme;
• broad cuts to social and community participation funding; and
• changes to provider registration and Administrative Review Tribunal processes.Social and community participation funding enables participants to access essential activities such as:• medical and therapy appointments, grocery and pharmacy shopping,,regular appointments such as haircuts or banking,,,opportunities to develop social skills and friendships,andparticipation in their broader community.These are not optional aspects of daily life, and people with disability should not be expected toforgo access to them.Reducing these supports would also place greater pressure on informal supports such as parents andsiblings.This may reduce workforce participation among carers, creating additional financial strainfor families during an ongoing cost-of-living crisis, while also reducing tax contributions to thebroader economy.I personally support the concept of provider registration.However,the current registration process isprohibitively expensive and burdensome for sole traders and small providers.As a sole trader myself,I could not reasonably afford registration under the current system.I am also strongly concerned about proposed changes to the Administrative Review Tribunalthatwould remove its ability to make changes to plans.Participants require access to an independentthird party capable of reviewing decisions objectivelyand providing oversightof agency decision-making.Removing this function risks further reducing accountability andreducing internal administrative processeswithinanagency thatis already strugglingwith efficiency.If genuine consultation withthe disabilitycommunity istendedtheconsultation timeframes mustbe extended ,authenticconsultationsmustoccur.