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 (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (“the Bill”) and the associated Explanatory Memorandum.

While recognising the importance of long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the proposed reforms create a substantial imbalance of power between government, participants, families and providers. The Bill introduces expanded administrative authority, increased compliance powers, broader civil and financial penalties and heightened participant burden while reducing certainty, transparency and procedural safeguards.

The NDIS was originally established as a rights-based social insurance model intended to empower people with disability through individualised support, reasonable risk-taking, functional participation and independent review mechanisms. It was not designed to function as a centrally controlled administrative system governed by broad discretionary powers concentrated within government departments.

Although reform is necessary, the current legislative approach risks fundamentally altering the philosophy and structure of the Scheme.

Imbalance of Power and Administrative Overreach

The Bill creates a profound imbalance of power between: - the Commonwealth, - the NDIA, - participants, - families, - and providers. Participants are increasingly required to continuously prove: - permanence, - impairment severity, - treatment history, - functional impact, - and support necessity, while the NDIA is granted expanding authority to: - reinterpret eligibility, - suspend plans, - reassess supports, - redefine funding categories, - impose compliance measures, - and alter operational rules through delegated legislative instruments and policy changes.

The practical effect is that participants carry the burden of justification while the government retains ongoing unilateral authority to redefine the rules of the Scheme over time.

This undermines: - legal certainty,

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,
• and decisions that are later overturned through external review and tribunal proceedings, after significant financial and emotional cost.

Many participants are already forced to engage in lengthy appeals processes simply to access supports that align with both the intent and wording of the existing legislation. This demonstrates that the issue is not solely legislative complexity, but the growing concentration of discretionary administrative power combined with inconsistent operational interpretation and inadequate accountability mechanisms.

Expanding these powers further - while simultaneously reducing safeguards and increasing flexibility for future rule changes - significantly increases the risk of systemic overreach.

Rather than improving clarity, the Bill may legitimise broader restrictive interpretations and create additional barriers for participants attempting to access reasonable and necessary support.

For many people with disabilities - particularly those with cognitive, psychosocial, communication, or executive functioning impairments - the system already presents substantial barriers. Increasing administrative complexity and evidentiary burden does not improve sustainability. It merely transfers strain onto the most vulnerable individuals within the system.

Of further concern is the increasing reliance on delegated legislation and administrative instruments rather than direct parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill appears to provide future governments with broad ongoing discretion to modify:

• eligibility interpretations,
• support definitions,
• planning frameworks,
• reassessment processes,
• and operational requirements, without sufficient democratic oversight, transparency, or meaningful co-design with the disability community.

This level of concentrated executive authority is inconsistent with the original intent and democratic philosophy underpinning the NDIS.

The Scheme was established as a participant-centred social insurance framework intended to protect:

• autonomy,
• participation,

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,
• 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,
• and long-term dependence on acute services expands.

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,
• and heightened psychological distress.

Providers and clinicians face:

• growing compliance obligations,
• increased legal ambiguity,
• administrative overload,
• retrospective scrutiny,
• workforce burnout,
• and uncertainty regarding service viability.

This is particularly concerning in a sector already experiencing:

• workforce shortages,
• long waitlists,
• provider withdrawal,
• rural access gaps,
• and escalating participant complexity.

Rather than strengthening sustainability, the Bill risks destabilising the very infrastructure required to maintain the Scheme.

Financial and Civil Penalties Will Increase Systemic Risk

A further major concern is the expansion of financial penalties, civil penalties, compliance investigations, repayment powers and enforcement mechanisms throughout the proposed legislation.

While accountability and fraud prevention are important, the scale and breadth of the proposed compliance powers risk creating a culture of fear and defensive practice across the disability sector.

These measures are likely to:

• discourage providers from working with complex participants,
• reduce willingness to deliver flexible or innovative supports,
• increase defensive administrative practices,
• discourage participant self-management,
• and reduce provider participation in already under-serviced areas.

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 to:

• self-manage plans,
• trial innovative supports,
• seek clarification,
• advocate for flexibility,
• or 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,
• flexibility,
• and 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 mistrust.

This may ultimately reduce service availability and increase participant crises, placing further pressure on hospitals, mental health systems, schools, housing services and informal family supports.

A sustainable disability system cannot operate effectively where participants and providers are forced to prioritise legal risk management over genuine support delivery.

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 established 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 excessive administrative power.

Without adequate limitations, transparency, independent oversight and parliamentary accountability, the proposed framework risks enabling future governments to progressively narrow participant rights without meaningful scrutiny.

Conclusion

The sustainability of the NDIS is important and reform is necessary. However, sustainability cannot be achieved through:

• increased fear,
• concentrated administrative power,
• punitive compliance structures,
• escalating evidentiary burden,
• or systemic instability.

The proposed amendments risk increasing harm across the disability sector while merely shifting social and economic costs into other government systems.

True sustainability requires:

• transparency,
• co-design,
• participant trust,
• early intervention,
• stable support systems,
• functional participation,
• and clear legislative safeguards.

Without substantial amendment, the Bill risks undermining the foundational principles upon which the NDIS was originally established.