Submission 1950
Submission to the Senate
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.
Inquiry regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Dear Committee Secretary.
Please find in this submission the sections, sub section, clauses and the bills published explanatory notes that I wish to comment on. The government’s bill proposals are written in blue with my submission notes written in black.
I thank you for the ability to comment on this new NDIS Bill and I hope the comments and suggestions will be helpful with the results of the committee’s findings
Govt proposal; Proposed new subsection 9B(1) would define ‘functional capacity’. A person’s functional capacity will relate to their ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications and in a setting that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.
The requirement to assess functional capacity excluding the environmental and personal circumstances, as much as possible, intends to confine the assessment to the person’s intrinsic ability to undertake an activity. This approach avoids reliance on personal and external factors that may vary between individuals and are not attributable to the impairment, such as financial means or living arrangements. This promotes a more objective and consistent assessment of the functional impact of the person’s impairment. End Govt Proposal
This is flawed as a disabled person may be able to do certain functions only in a limited situation that in itself supports the person but not elsewhere. Such as having a minimal ability to walk with or without an ability aid in a small familiar space. But due to balance, mobility, body function limitations not able to do it all over a medium to longer distance.
Such a person maybe able to use crutches to ensure balance for a short distance but must use a wheeled mobility aid over a longer distance. Their disability may have limitations on their functionalities that become more complicated over longer distances, surfaces and terrain to be met. The fact that they cannot carry or manipulate items. Are they going to an area where other people traverse in larger numbers. The lack of ability to climb or use stairs, the need for a carer to travel with them due to safe limitations of their disability on other circumstances. A great example is a disabled toilet with “manual doors” that are so heavy to move that a person with lower upper body and arm strength cannot get themselves in or
Submission 1950
out and needs assistance to do so in public places. Will this all be picked up in a functionality test carried only in a test environment?
Functionality changes even for the able-bodied person for a more complicated the task and this is even more so for the disabled. Fatigue and pain set in early and stress on joints forced to work harder and often being used differently to the able-bodied person. This can make many functions that an able-bodied person can do to be just distressing if not supported with the correct aids and a full understanding of this is found by those doing the assessment. To ignore diagnoses that explains the hidden reasons behind a person’s functionality or work backwards to see what technology is used now and why, seem fraught.
If changes in section 24 (1) (c) and 9B relate to a real holistic evaluation of how a person’s function relates to an activity then those changes would have to look at the circumstance of that activity in differing circumstances to get a real picture of the person being tested.
Proposed new subsection 9B(3) the new rules that allow the NDIS to change functional limits appears to make the disability fit the budget, not the budget fit the disability need.
Part 2 Limited Plan Unscheduled reassessments. Agreed in relation that plan reassessments should only be requested by a participant or their authorised representative.
Item 19 – Subsection 48(3) Not Agree ! Govt proposal; This item amends the period for the CEO to make a decision about a reassessment following a request from a participant. The period is extended from 21 days to 90 days, beginning on the day the CEO received the request.
The item also amends the wording of the provision to reflect that a request for reassessment can be made by the participant, their plan nominee or child representative, and that conditions must be satisfied before making the request, as set out in new paragraph 48(2)(b). End Govt Proposal
Item 19 – Subsection 48(3). I suggest triaging should occur instead to ensure all high risk and important requests are given a top priority based upon need
The extension of a plan reassessment request from 21 days to 90 days is totally unacceptable. This especially so if the requested reassessment can endanger or leave the participant without needed supports due to a change in their care environment.
For example, a participant has lived lifelong with their parents or relatives as so many do. The parents’ relatives by default are the primary carers and a situation occurs where due to the carers incapability due to age, ill health or even death the participant has no any longer a Carer with them.
This sadly can happen without any notice and is ofcourse catastrophic to the participant. The NDIS has been seen by most of us as supplying funding for care for not only for the present
Submission 1950
but in reserve so that care can be given if the primary carer is no longer there. This is what keeps parent/relative Carers awake at night worrying about their child’s future be they adult or younger after they are gone.
I note that in section 48 it states that plan changes for emergency situations will not change but there is no outline what a reasonable wait time is for such a situation.
So, to say that if a participant contacts the NDIS to inform them of such a situation and they can wait by legislation for help for up to 90 days is absolutely shocking and unbelievable. To have such extraordinarily long response times legislated in a program dealing with the most vulnerable and often fragile human beings is incredible. I also believe the original reassessment time of 21 days was also too slow for such situations and inhumane. It is noted in the case of the 21 days limit the CEO did not have to inform the participant if the application was declined. It was just taken no advice by 21 days meant it was declined? How is any of this suitable for a system designed to help people with a disability, many the most vulnerable in our society?
It is realised that there are reassessment requests some of differing importance but surely in legislation such as this a triage system should be included. If introduced a triage system could give differing reassessment periods based upon the urgency of the participants situation.
For example, loss of Carer through ill health/death should be a legislated immediate response time with a 24-hour, 7-day hot line linked to NDIS authorised decision makers, who must act! The NDIS in this instance should be able to assist to gain a provider as well as funding in this situation as well.
The need for new or extended home care funding or a transfer to suitable accommodation must be a priority of the scheme if their carer cannot no longer assist be it short term or permanently?
Participants asking for an urgent reassessment for an unforeseen loss of carer due to for example an upcoming planned hospital admission or other important changed circumstance. Should be a maximum of one week or less depending on the circumstance. Another situation would be for example a mechanical breakdown of a wheelchair that needs repair/replacement means that a participant is unable to leave home. This should be given a very quick response time especially if their approved plan had no funds to cover this. Currently approvals for such funding appear to have no urgency even though the disabled participant may be totally immobile and unable to cope without the aid?
The remaining should be assessed also on a sliding risk basis with a maximum of 90 days if it is a request for extra funds to continue non urgent activities already contained within a participant’s plan.
Submission 1950
Even so 90 days in an insurance scheme for people who need support to live their lives seems exceptional and seems to meet a cost or staffing need instead of a humane one in the way it is written.
Item 20 – Subsection 48(4)
In this item the CEO can give notice that a participant is to be given a new framework plan. That is fine as long as the framework plan can be triaged and responded as noted above in the response to item
Govt proposal; As per your notes; In addition, several other key changes will be implemented through the design and development of legislative instruments. This includes NDIS rules to facilitate the mandatory registration of providers who deliver high risk supports, and circumstances which go to determining whether an individual has undertaken all appropriate treatment for the purposes of determining whether an impairment is permanent or likely to be permanent. Consultation will occur through the process of developing and making these instruments. End Govt Proposal
e With registration will there be the ability for a self-managing participant or other to employ a person they trust and is capable to be their carer at a lower cost than that being quoted by a larger provider as long as that person can register as a provider. Currently it is a costly and lengthy process of requiring application, supply of an ABN’s, insurance certification screening and auditing with although the NDIS fee is zero the actual cost estimate to meet all required parameters to register range from $3000.00 to $10,000.00. (As per internet search estimate) So, it would be prohibitive for a person to be employed in such a way by a participant. Thus, leaving only larger corporate bodies being able to supply carers. Is there going to be a simpler registration process with lower attached costs to allow other provider types that may suit the participant better and still be approved by the NDIS?
Govt proposal ; Item 63 adds three new paragraphs to subsection 17A(3). The amendments will provide that the NDIS is to: where relevant, respect the role of family, carers and other persons who are significant in the life of participants; and where relevant, recognise and respect the relationship between participants and their families and carers; and support communities to respond to participants individual goals and needs. The purpose of this item is to incorporate key overarching principles from section 31 of the Act into section 17A. This reflects the move away from having principles that only apply to plans.
Govt Proposal Continues Proposed new subsection 17B(2) provides that considerations relevant to the performance of the CEO’s functions and exercise of the CEO’s powers include the following: the NDIS is to fund supports for participants to meet disability support needs that arise directly from impairments in relation to which participants meet the disability requirements or early intervention requirements. This reflects and expands the application of
Submission 1950
the amendments made by Part 8 of this Schedule. 37 of 224 the desirability of supporting communities to respond to the goals and needs of participants. The NDIS was never designed to replace ordinary community supports which are critical, as strong community capability helps participants achieve their goals more sustainably and inclusively. In addition, participants often do better when informal supports, including family, peers, clubs, employers and local services play a role alongside funded supports the financial sustainability of the Scheme, having regard to reports of the Scheme actuary under Part 6A of Chapter 6. This is achieved by only providing supports that are necessary, effective and good value and by preferring options that achieve the participant’s goals at the lowest reasonable cost while still being safe and appropriate. End Govt Proposal
Govt Proposal continues Family etc, support Proposed new subsections 34(1G), (1H) and (1J), provide guidance to the CEO in considering whether a support meets the requirements in paragraph 34(1)(e) that a support will only be reasonable and necessary if the funding or provision of the support takes account of what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide.
Govt Proposal Continues Under this option, the definition of reasonable and necessary would be tightened and changes would include: Permitting the Minister to determine reductions in funding for groups of supports. Specifying a maximum amount of funding supports, maximum intensity for provision of support or a maximum ratio of worker to participant for provision of supports for a participant or groups of participants. A more rigorous assessment of value for money, including requiring identification and consideration of lower cost options and the length of time a participant will require the support. Requiring consideration of whether there is evidence that supports are effective and beneficial for a participant. Elevating guidance on reasonable and necessary from the rules into primary legislation on value for money considerations. Requiring consideration of what is reasonable to expect family members and informal supports to provide, in particular for children. Clarifying that supports will only be funded if required directly because of an impairment that meets the eligibility criteria for the participant
Govt Proposal continues Changes may increase expectations of informal supports. The option includes a more vigorous consideration of what informal supports are reasonable for delegates to consider. This is likely to have direct flow on impacts to family members and kin (particularly of younger people) and may impact on the role of informal support under Australia’s End Govt Proposal
These clauses stating they recognise and respect the relationship with a participants family carers and other persons. Proposed sections 34 (1A), (1b), and (1C) show that respect by seemingly commodifying those relationships to save funds for the NDIS? Asking that the relationships to be taken into account when formulating funding plans for a participant. This
Submission 1950
is one the most blatant misunderstanding of the relationship between a participant and their family and others. The lifelong care given by a majority of parents to a participant needs to be relieved by the scheme not lent on. Not asking for more assistance from them. The Government has saved millions just for a single person over a lifetime for participants that gain care from their family compared to a person if they had been in formal care. Many well into their mature adult life.
Your bill states that having regard to the report by the scheme’s actuary then these costs must be provided at the lowest cost by inferring the increased the use of informal supports such as the participant’s family. This totally shows a disdain for the original purpose of the scheme. To say that a disabled person should have the funding set, reduced or modelled around the family or others filling in is not attached to the reality of those relationships that already occur. Where in fact the bill should be providing the support for an independent life of choice and goals of a participant and shows an attitude of arrogance or a lack of understanding towards the tremendous amount of support already given by a majority of families and others.
The NDIS originally informed family carers and the like that it would relieve them or give them some relief of some of their long ongoing responsibilities allowing them as carers to be able to focus on some of their own goals, interests and even travel. Respite was always talked about but now anything about the participant carer relationship has been lost and anything the scheme allows for the sanity and physiological needs of a caring relationships has been lost. Many carers are seniors some even in their eighties or older. The participants they are supporting are often in the 40’s, 50’s or 60’s even, but the scheme sees no reason to alleviate the thoughts of carers in the quiet, late at night often as they lay in bed by what happens when I am no longer here! The participants have the same thoughts, I am sure.
Now the community participation that allows a participant to socialise is being slowly defunded and having strictures put in place. If looking at the $200 million for the creation of community-based schemes for some sort of “community-based activities or other for the disabled”. The Community participation allows a disabled person to socialise as a group with their peers with assistance for activities or events they wish to go to as they would if they were not disabled. (The point of the NDIS in the first place.) The community connection that participants are able to use also supplies a short period of respite for themselves and their carers. Money well spent I would say if looked at in context. Especially if you are really as stated in this legislation you wish to respect the family, carers and others as you say. Adult participants and families are entitled to have separate lives whether living together or not and the scheme must continue to recognise this reality.
You have said that when relating to a participant being functionally tested to enter or stay on the scheme that their personal and external factors will now be not taken into account. But when deciding funding for a participant that is exactly what the scheme wishes to do in regards to family, peers and community they are actually the participants external factors!
Submission 1950
Govt Proposal; Proposed new subsections 34(1A), (1B) and (1C) provide guidance to the CEO in considering whether a support meets the requirements in paragraph 34(1)(c) that a support will only be reasonable and necessary if it represents value for money, in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support. These subsections do not limit the matters that the CEO may have regard to for the purposes of paragraph End Govt Proposal.
These subsections need to ensure that they have more holistic approach to what is reasonable, necessary and value for money. Supports for example but not limited to; thats assists the participant to have choice to meet their life goals, be supported to assist the participant to independently carry out the basics of life, attend appointments, work for payment or voluntarily, participate in a provider-based activity or participate reasonably to have their social connections of their choice is important. Participant choice was the original basis of the NDIS. That the participant may also be at the same time be allowing partial or full respite for carers and the participant while attending such activities must be taken as a reasonable outcome for an insurance scheme to support their life. The NDIS was created to allow a participant to have choice and control over their lives while giving them surety of being able to have support to live a life of setting independent goals and interests as a non- disabled person has the freedom to do so. I do note that what is reasonable and necessary can also change with the differing needs of every participant of the scheme.
Govt proposal; A $200m Inclusive Communities Fund will also be established to rebuild capability among community organisations to provide genuine opportunities for inclusion and connection for NDIS participants and encourage participation in NDIS funded group activity
The Australian Government is investing $200 million to establish an Inclusive Communities Fund to rebuild capability among community organisations to host genuine participation activities. The Australian Government will work closely with the disability community to identify where investment is most needed and likely to result in improved inclusion for people with disability.[166] End Govt Proposal
The investment of $200 million to establish and encourage community groups and clubs to have facilities and events that would include the disabled follows on from some that have already existed. To be a success the participant cannot be in the minority as that automatically sets them apart from the general populous of the group. For many a support worker would still be required to assist the participant. It appears that as this is being funded out of a need to find or create a low-cost option. As such this may not be the best starting point to supply activities that genuinely are wanted and are accepted by the participants and meets their needs.
Submission 1950
Final Comment
After reading the 224 pages of the bill it appears to me to set out a new regime where the Minister and CEO can now just deem that the rates paid or the plan funds can be reduced to a meet budgetary need it seems. With it appears little regard on the actual effect on the participant nor provider. The ability to ever change the reasonable, necessary and cost- effective ruling of approved supports makes gaining supports for a participants plan no longer based on the need of something being necessary for a disabled person. But the CEO instead can rule anything not cost effective leaving the participant without the required support. The Minister can now also rule that plan costs can be cut by percentages without regard to any real reference to the ongoing needs this may affect participant by participant?
So, participants of this scheme now appear that they will never know that a support or even if a provider will be available long term and will not be able to plan their lives based on any ongoing approval in future plans even for base support needs. This is not a suitable arrangement and skews the purpose of the scheme away from the disabled participants to what appears to be some type of benevolence handed out yearly based upon budgetary need.