Submission 2104

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

We write on behalf of our daughter to express serious concerns in relation to particular issues with the “Securing the NDIS for Future Generations” Bill 2026.

Clearly, reforms to the NDIS are necessary to deal with issues such as financial fraud and misuse of the scheme’s funds, as well as other changes identified through a culture of continual improvement to ensure optimal effectiveness and efficiencies.

However, we are alarmed that a number of the proposed amendments are excessively draconian, representing a regime of “cuts” rather than a process of staged reforms. This includes provisions that give the Minister unprecedented powers to reduce participant’s budget without due process, and with restricted avenues for appeals of NDIA decisions.

For our daughter, and consequently us, the primary areas of concern are:

• Loss of adequate funding
• Self-Management of NDIS funds
• Automated Decision-Making: I-CAN Assessment tool.

Our daughter

Our daughter is a 44 year old woman with an intellectual disability and complex support needs. She lives independently with daily support funded by the NDIS. Before she received funding for support services, our daughter’s experience of life was one of limited choice, little control, and dependence on us. Her frustrations were often expressed in disruptive, violent and self-harming behaviours.

It’s only in recent years, with self-management of an adequate level of NDIS funding, that she has experienced a self-directed life of relative stability.

Adequate level of funding

Our daughter’s NDIS budget has allowed us, over time, to build a regime of support around her so that she can live her best life, her way. This took several years of trying different support approaches to achieve the approach and balance that works best for her.

She has never used her full budget, and as we have evolved her support structures we have managed to reduce the amount of funding that she uses, which has now been stable for several years. Any reduction in funding below her current level would be extremely destabilizing.

Submission 2104

Yet the draft Bill gives the Minister the power to reduce her funding without regard to due process, with no avenue for appeal. This is very concerning.

Self-Management

The option to self-manage our daughter’s NDIS funding has provided the flexibility for us to structure our daughter’s support in a way that works best for her, and gives her a greater degree of choice and control over her life. This includes subcontracting staff and carefully selecting workers who understand or are willing to commit to understanding how our daughter experiences her environment. It provides for a greater degree of flexibility in how we manage support hours in a way which responds to our daughter’s support needs, which has also proven to be very cost efficient.

We are concerned that if the self-management option is removed, we will be required to have her support provided through a disability service provider. Our experience is that such agencies, particularly the larger organisations, do not and are not able to provide the flexibility that our daughter’s complex support approach requires. Indeed, we have experienced occasions where the disability service agency’s inflexibility has contributed to significant and unnecessary disruption and stress to our daughter, with us left to deal with the fall-out.

From a purely economic perspective, we - and other families that utilize the self- management option to structure supports and engage support staff - often deliver better outcomes at a lower cost. We don’t know whether the proposed reforms will retain access to this option, but strongly recommend that self-management continues to be available as an option.

Automated Decision Making: I-CAN Assessment tool

We are incredibly concerned regarding the introduction of the proposed new I-CAN Assessment tool. The idea of assessment based on functionality rather than diagnosis has merit, if properly handled. However, it is highly improbable that the Automated Decision-Making tool could accurately analyse and reflect the complexity of our daughter’s support needs. While the results of the algorithm based assessment would be reviewed and approved by trained NDIA staff, we are concerned that use of computer systems and algorithms to partially automate decision making will negatively influence outcomes.

It has been our experience regarding NDIS assessments that the insights and understandings of the people undertaking the assessments of our daughter’s support needs have been critical in arriving at constructive outcomes. The use of computer systems and algorithms to partially automate decision-making will likely diminish the influence of the human response and predispose negative outcomes.

Conclusion

Submission 2104

After an extended period of consultation, the Government appears to be proceeding with a change process that does not reflect the consistent feedback from participants and their families, and is focused on “cuts” rather than reform – to the detriment of our society’s most vulnerable members.

We are both in our 70s, and have been supporting, managing and advocating for our daughter for most of her 44 years. Just when we thought we had achieved a stable foundation for our daughter’s future through the NDIS, we find ourselves once again deeply concerned for her and her future.

Recommendations

We recommend that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 not be passed without significant amendments, including to:

• limit the power of the Minister to cut participant’s budgets without due process
• ensure the right of appeal for NDIS participants in relation to NDIS decisions
• ensure that NDIS participant’s budgets won’t be reduced in a manner that undermines their legitimate support regime
• confirm that self-management of NDIS funding will continue to be an option
• re-frame the Automated Decision Making algorithm assessment tool as a guide for qualified practioners, rather than having a decision-maker role, and ensure that qualified practitioners have the authority to make their own assessments and over-ride the automated algorithm decisions.