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

Submission 203

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

Introduction This submission raises significant concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (\

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

Submission 203

• procedural fairness,
• transparency, and participant trust.

Of significant concern is that the NDIS already demonstrates substantial difficulty consistently and accurately interpreting and applying existing legislation. Participants, families, advocates and providers routinely experience:

• inconsistent decision-making,
• contradictory planning outcomes,
• incorrect interpretations of legislation,
• unjustified funding restrictions,
• arbitrary limitations,
• excessive evidentiary requirements,
• delayed review processes,
• decisions later overturned through external review and tribunal proceedings after significant financial emotional cost. Many participants are forced into lengthy appeals simply accessing supports aligning both intention wording current law demonstrating issue not solely legislative complexity but growing concentration discretionary administrative power combined operational interpretation inadequate accountability mechanisms Expanding these powers further while simultaneously reducing safeguards increasing flexibility future rule changes significantly increases risk systemic overreach Rather than improving clarity bill may legitimise broader restrictive interpretations create additional barriers access reasonable necessary support For many people disabilities particularly those cognitive psychosocial communication executive functioning impairments system presents substantial barrier Increasing administrative complex evidence burden does improve sustainability merely transfers strain most vulnerable individuals within System reliance delegated legislation instruments rather direct parliamentary scrutiny appears provide governments broad ongoing discretion modify eligibility definitions frameworks reassessment processes operations without sufficient democratic oversight transparency meaningful co-design disability community This level concentrated executive authority consistent with original intent democratic philosophy underpinning Scheme was established as participant-centred social insurance framework intended protect autonomy participation

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

Submission 203

• dignity, -independence, -and the rights of people with disability. It was never intended to operate as a highly centralised compliance regime controlled through expanding administrative discretion and ongoing governmental reinterpretation. While reform and sustainability measures are necessary, concentrating increasing levels of power within government departments - without equivalent safeguards, independent oversight, or parliamentary accountability - risks fundamentally changing the nature of the Scheme. There is genuine concern that these reforms move the NDIS further toward a system where the government holds excessive unilateral authority over essential disability supports, with participants having diminishing practical capacity to challenge, influence, or meaningfully participate in decisions that profoundly affect their lives. A disability support system must remain grounded in: rights, transparency, accountability, procedural fairness, independent review,and democratic oversight. Without these safeguards, the Scheme risks becoming increasingly authoritarian in practice rather than remaining the participant-led model it was originally designed to be.

Increased Administrative Burden Will Not Reduce Overall Costs The Bill appears premised on the assumption that stricter access controls, reassessment processes and expanded compliance powers will reduce Scheme expenditure. However, this approach risks merely redistributing crisis and financial burden across other government systems, including: public hospitals,every emergency departments,mental health services,housing and homelessness sectors[child protection systems],education systems[justice systems]and unpaid family care networks.When disability supports become unstable, inaccessible,or administratively overwhelming:school disengagement increases,[workforce participation declines],[mental health deteriorates][hospital admissions rise,family burnout intensifies[long-term dependence on acute services expands].

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

Submission 203 This does not represent genuine cost reduction. It represents cost displacement.

The NDIS was originally designed as an early intervention and capacity-building framework precisely because long-term social and economic costs increase when functional support systems fail. Reducing participant stability will not reduce complexity or demand. It will intensify it.

Increased Risk to Participants and the Disability Sector The proposed reforms create significant systemic risk across the entire disability sector.

Participants face:

• greater uncertainty,
• increased reassessment anxiety,
• interruptions to continuity of support,
• administrative overwhelm,
• reduced ability to plan for the future,
• heightened psychological distress. Providers and clinicians face:
• growing compliance obligations,
• increased legal ambiguity,
• administrative overload,
• retrospective scrutiny,
• workforce burnout, -and uncertain service viability. This is particularly concerning given a sector experiencing: -workforce shortages, -long waitlists, -provider withdrawal, rural access gaps,

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

Submission 203 Many providers - particularly small organisations, sole traders, allied health clinicians and independent practitioners - already operate under substantial administrative pressure and regulatory uncertainty. Expanding punitive enforcement powers without corresponding legislative clarity creates significant operational and legal risk. Providers may increasingly avoid:

• Participants with complex behavioural or psychosocial presentations,
• High-risk support environments,
• Flexible community-based interventions, -and non-traditional capacity-building approaches,- due to fear of:future audits,repayment demands,investigations,civil penalties-or allegations of non-compliance arising from unclear interpretations of legislation or policy.-Similarly, participants and families may become reluctant toselect-manage plans,trial innovative supportsseek clarificationadvocate for flexibilityor fully utilise funding-out of concern that legitimate decisions could later result in penalties, debt recovery actions, or accusations of misuse.This fundamentally undermines the original participant-led philosophy of the NDIS.The Bill risks creating an environment where fear of regulatory consequences overrides:-clinical judgement-participant autonomy-innovation-flexibilityand genuine support needs.Excessive enforcement mechanisms do not automatically produce better outcomes or greater sustainability.In practice they often increase:bureaucratic burden-service withdrawal-workforce attrition-delays in support access-and systemic mistrustThis may ultimately reduce service availability and increase participant crises placing further pressure on hospitals mental health systems schools housing services informal family supports.A sustainable disability system cannot operate effectively where participants providers are forced toprioritiselegal risk management over genuine support delivery.

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

Submission 203

Democratic and Human Rights Concerns

The expansion of executive discretion and administrative authority within the Bill raises broader democratic concerns.

The proposed reforms risk transforming the NDIS from:

• a participant-centred insurance model grounded in rights and functional support, to:
• a compliance-driven administrative regime controlled through broad governmental discretion. This represents a significant philosophical departure from the original vision of the Scheme. The NDIS was eestablished to provide people with disability greater independence, autonomy, participation and certainty.The current proposals risk creating the opposite:

• instability, fear, administrative dependence,and concentrated governmental control over essential supports. Any system designed to protect vulnerable Australians must include strong safeguards against excessiveadministrative power. Without adequate limitations, transparency, independent oversight and parliamentary accountability,the proposed framework risks enabling future governments to progressively narrow participant rightswithout meaningful scrutiny. Conclusion The sustainability of the NDIS is important and reformis necessary.However,sustainability cannot beachievedthrough:
• increased fear, concentrated administrativelpower,punitive compliancestructures,elevating evidentiary burdenor systemicinstability.Theproposed amendments riskecreasing harm acrossthe disabilitysector while merely shiftingsocialand economic costs into other government systems True sustainabilty requires:
• transparancy,codedesign,participant trustearly interventionstable suppor tsystemsfunctional participationsclear legislative safeguardsWitouth substantial amendment, th eBillrisks undermining thefoundational principles upon which then DISwas originally established.