National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
Subject: Urgent Objection to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Dear Minister / Senator / Member of Parliament,
I am writing to strongly oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 in its current form.
I support the need for integrity, sustainability and fairness in the NDIS. However, sustainability must not be achieved by cutting essential supports, narrowing eligibility, reducing participant choice, or placing even more pressure on families, carers and crisis systems.
The NDIS is not a luxury. It is a lifeline for people with permanent and significant disability. This Bill risks moving the scheme away from individualised, person-centred support and toward a more rigid, capped and administratively driven system.
I am particularly concerned about the following proposed provisions.
- Proposed Section 34A — 50% reduction to social, civic and community participation supports
I strongly oppose the proposed 50% reduction to social, civic and community participation supports.
Community participation is not an optional extra. For many participants, it is the support that prevents isolation, deterioration, behavioural escalation, family breakdown, mental health crisis and loss of independence.
These supports allow people with disability to access the community, build skills, maintain routines, form relationships, practise social communication, regulate emotions, participate in meaningful activities and live a life beyond basic survival.
A blanket 50% reduction does not reflect individual need. It risks punishing participants who genuinely require higher levels of community access due to complex disability, psychosocial disability, autism, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, trauma-related needs, communication barriers, behavioural support needs or lack of informal supports.
I am also concerned that this proposed reduction may be applied before proper reassessment and without meaningful review rights. If a participant later demonstrates a higher level of need, the cut should not remain locked in. Participants must have the right to individual assessment, reasons for decisions, internal review and external merits review.
- Proposed Sections 33(2EA) and 32K — Ministerial caps on supports
I strongly oppose any provision that allows the Minister to impose dollar caps, hourly caps, worker-to-participant ratio limits, or other limits through instruments or rules that are not fully transparent and publicly scrutinised.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
The NDIS was designed to provide reasonable and necessary supports based on individual functional need. Hidden or broad caps risk turning the scheme into a rationed program where people are limited by a general rule rather than assessed according to their actual circumstances.
Any limits on funding must be transparent, publicly available, evidence-based, disallowable by Parliament and reviewable by participants. Participants and families must be able to understand why a support has been reduced or refused and must have proper appeal rights.
I am concerned that broad Ministerial powers could reduce participant choice and control and allow major changes to be made without adequate consultation with people with disability, families, carers, advocates and frontline professionals.
- Proposed Section 341AA — Removal of the whole-of-person approach
I strongly oppose any change that removes or weakens the whole-of-person approach.
Disability does not occur in neat, separate boxes. Many participants have intersecting and complex needs. A person may have autism, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, trauma impacts, physical disability, communication needs, behavioural support needs, family stress, housing instability and health issues all interacting together.
If the NDIS only funds supports that arise directly from one eligible impairment, participants with complex presentations may lose essential support even where their overall functional capacity is significantly reduced.
This is especially concerning for people with multiple disabilities, psychosocial disability, acquired brain injury, developmental disability, trauma histories, complex behaviours, and children or young people with overlapping support needs.
The NDIS must assess the person as a whole. It must consider functional capacity, environment, informal supports, risk, safety and the interaction between impairments. A narrow impairment-by-impairment test will create gaps, disputes and unfair outcomes.
- Proposed Section 58 — Automatic plan renewal, 12-month rollover and loss of unspent one- off or capital funding
I am concerned about proposed changes to automatic plan renewal and the treatment of unspent funds at the end of a plan period.
Participants should not lose essential one-off or capital funding simply because of delays outside their control. Many delays occur because of long waitlists, report delays, quote delays, therapy availability, assistive technology approval processes, home modification processes, provider shortages or administrative issues within the NDIA itself.
For example, a participant may be waiting for wheelchair quotes, assistive technology reports, home modification assessments, behaviour support plans, therapy availability, or provider engagement. Removing unspent funds at plan rollover could punish participants for system
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
delays they did not cause.
Any plan renewal process must protect approved supports that remain necessary. There must be a clear process to carry forward committed funds for essential equipment, therapy, home modifications, vehicle modifications, behaviour support, assessments and other approved supports where delays are outside the participant’s control.
- Proposed Section 48A — Harder unscheduled reassessments and extended NDIA decision timeframe
I oppose any change that makes it harder for participants to request an unscheduled reassessment when their circumstances change.
Disability support needs can change quickly. Families can break down. Carers can become unwell. Housing can become unsafe. Behaviour can escalate. School, work, health, mental health, family violence, child protection, hospital discharge and crisis circumstances can all change a participant’s support needs.
A 90 or 91-day timeframe for the NDIA to decide whether to reassess or vary a plan is too long in urgent situations. Three months without adequate support can place participants, families, carers and workers at serious risk.
I am also concerned about the removal of previous safeguards where delays could trigger review rights. Participants should not be left waiting without recourse when the NDIA fails to respond in a timely way.
There must be:
urgent pathways for crisis and safety matters;
clear decision timeframes;
written reasons;
review rights;
protections where informal supports collapse;
protections where disability-related behaviour or safety risks escalate;
recognition of family and carer burnout.
- Proposed Sections 40A and 31A — Plan suspension, information requests and civil penalties
I am deeply concerned about any provision that allows a participant’s plan to be suspended following undefined “reasonable attempts” to contact them or following alleged failure to comply with information requests.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
Many NDIS participants experience communication difficulties, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability, unstable housing, trauma, family crisis, limited digital access, language barriers, literacy issues or reliance on nominees and carers to manage correspondence.
Suspending a plan may remove the very supports that allow the participant to stay safe, housed, regulated, connected and able to respond.
I am also concerned about civil penalties of up to $20,000 for non-compliance. Penalties of this size may be completely disproportionate for participants and families who are already under stress and may not have understood or received the request.
Before any suspension or penalty, there must be:
clear written notice;
accessible communication;
support to respond;
involvement of nominees, guardians or advocates where appropriate;
reasonable adjustments for disability;
a clear definition of “reasonable attempts”;
protection from suspension where doing so would create risk of harm;
full review and appeal rights.
Participants should not lose support because the system failed to communicate with them in an accessible way.
- Proposed Section 9B — New functional capacity / “naked person” eligibility test
I am concerned about the proposed redefinition of eligibility and any test that focuses too narrowly on what a person can do without considering real-world context, supports, safety, sustainability and fluctuating capacity.
Functional capacity must not be assessed in an artificial way. It must consider whether a person can perform activities safely, repeatedly, reliably and sustainably in everyday life.
A person may appear able to complete a task once, but not be able to do it consistently without support, prompting, supervision, behaviour support, communication support, emotional regulation support or environmental adjustments.
Any new eligibility test must not exclude people with autism, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, acquired brain injury, developmental disability, complex trauma, fluctuating conditions or invisible disabilities simply because their needs are misunderstood or because
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
they do not fit a narrow physical-care model.
Eligibility must be based on real functional impact, not stereotypes about disability.
- Schedule 5 — Transitional rules and Ministerial power to override or modify operation of the Act
I am concerned about the proposed transitional rule-making powers under Schedule 5.
While transitional rules may sometimes be necessary, they must not be used to make major changes without proper parliamentary scrutiny, transparency or consultation. People with disability and families need certainty. They should not be expected to live with shifting rules that can be changed quickly and are difficult to understand.
Any transitional rules must be:
publicly available;
subject to parliamentary scrutiny;
time-limited;
consistent with human rights;
consistent with the objects and principles of the NDIS Act;
developed with genuine consultation;
accompanied by plain-English participant information.
Transitional arrangements must not be used to reduce supports, avoid review rights, override safeguards or create confusion for participants and families.
- Claim timeframes, record keeping and administrative burden
I am also concerned about changes reducing the time to make claims to 90 days and increasing record-keeping obligations.
While I support action against fraud, the burden should not fall unfairly on participants, families and small providers who are acting honestly. Many participants and carers already manage significant administrative load. They may be dealing with disability, work, caring responsibilities, trauma, medical appointments, school issues, housing stress, service gaps and constant advocacy.
There must be flexibility where delays are caused by provider error, plan manager delays, participant incapacity, crisis, hospitalisation, family breakdown or NDIA administrative issues.
Integrity measures must target fraud and exploitation, not create fear and punishment for
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
ordinary participants and families trying to manage complex support systems.
- Broader concern — cost shifting to families and crisis systems
If these changes proceed, the need will not disappear. It will be shifted onto unpaid carers, families, hospitals, schools, police, child protection, mental health services, housing services and emergency departments.
Reducing community participation, narrowing eligibility, limiting reassessments and increasing administrative barriers may appear to reduce NDIS costs on paper, but it will increase human cost and create pressure elsewhere.
Families are already carrying too much. Many are exhausted, financially stretched and trying to prevent crisis with limited support. Cutting supports will increase risk, not reduce it.
I ask that you:
Oppose the Bill in its current form.
Remove the proposed 50% reduction to social, civic and community participation supports under Section 34A.
Reject hidden or broad Ministerial caps under Sections 33(2EA) and 32K unless they are transparent, evidence-based, publicly scrutinised and reviewable.
Retain a whole-of-person approach and reject narrow impairment-only funding tests under Section 341AA.
Protect unspent approved funds for capital supports, assistive technology, home modifications, assessments and other essential supports under Section 58.
Amend Section 48A to ensure timely reassessment decisions, urgent crisis pathways and full review rights.
Amend Sections 40A and 31A to ensure plans cannot be suspended without accessible communication, reasonable adjustments, advocacy support and strong safeguards.
Ensure any new eligibility test under Section 9B considers real-world functioning, safety, sustainability, fluctuating capacity and invisible disabilities.
Ensure Schedule 5 transitional rules cannot be used to bypass consultation, parliamentary scrutiny or participant review rights.
Extend the Senate inquiry and consultation period so people with disability, families, carers, advocates and frontline workers can properly respond.
Ensure all reforms are co-designed with people with disability and their families.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2053
Protect current participants from sudden reductions, loss of essential supports or administrative penalties.
The NDIS should be improved, not dismantled through blanket cuts, hidden caps, narrow eligibility tests and increased administrative barriers.
People with disability deserve dignity, safety, inclusion, choice and support that reflects their real lives.
Please provide a written response outlining your position on this Bill and what action you will take to protect current and future NDIS participants.
Yours sincerely,