Submission 2134

Submission 2134

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

Submission to: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Deadline: 29th May 2026

This submission addresses the following parts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026:

• Schedule 1, Part 1, items 3–4 — proposed section 9B: definition of functional capacity.
• Schedule 1, Part 2, items 18–21 — sections 48 and 48A: limits on participant-requested plan reassessments and the change from 21 days to 90 days.
• Schedule 1, Part 3, item 31 — section 34(1)(aa): requirement that supports arise directly from eligible impairment/s.
• Schedule 1, Part 4, item 34 — proposed section 34A: support determinations allowing funding reductions for groups of supports.
• Schedule 1, Part 5, item 50 — proposed section 50A: plan renewals replacing plan continuations.
• Schedule 1, Part 5, item 58: transitional conversion of reassessment dates into plan end dates.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 60 — section 3(1)(d): financial sustainability wording in the objects of the Act.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 65 — proposed section 17B: principles relating to scheme sustainability.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 66: repeal of section 31 planning principles.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 68 — proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB): maximum funding amounts, support intensity, and worker-to-participant ratios.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 70 — proposed section 34(1)(g): supports that may be considered more appropriately provided by another scheme or government service system.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 73 — proposed sections 34(1A)-(1F): value for money and effective/beneficial evidence considerations.
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 73 — proposed sections 34(1G)-(1K): family, carer, informal support and community support considerations.
• Schedule 1, Part 7, items 79 and 83 — proposed sections 30(1A) and 40A: plan suspension and revocation where participants are not contactable.
• Schedule 1, Part 8, items 89, 91 and 92 — sections 24(5), 25(1B), and proposed section 25A: permanence and “appropriate treatment”.

Submission 2134

●​ Schedule 1, Part 9, items 96–98 — proposed section 25B and related access/revocation provisions: alternative support requirements and excluded impairments. ●​ Schedule 3, Part 1, items 3–4 — proposed sections 34B and 45C: Ministerial powers relating to indexation and maximum pricing. ●​ Schedule 4, item 4 — proposed sections 32K(3B)–(3E): new framework planning budget methods, funding levels, and maximum funding amounts.

About me

I am making this submission as a:

●​ NDIS participant

My connection to the NDIS, disability, or disability support is: I am a plan-managed NDIS participant who applied for and am in the process of navigating this funding. I also have friends who are support workers employed by agencies however the views expressed herein are mine only.

Why the NDIS matters

The NDIS is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is not charity. It is national disability insurance.

It exists because disability can happen to any Australian. A person can be born with disability, or acquire disability through illness, injury, accident, trauma, age-related events, or mental health conditions.

Many Australians cannot privately insure themselves against the lifelong costs of disability support. That is why a national scheme matters.

The NDIS helps people with disability live safely, maintain independence, participate in the community, study, work, communicate, access support, avoid crisis, and live with dignity.

The NDIS should be treated as essential social infrastructure, similar to Medicare. We do not treat Medicare as charity. We should not treat disability support as charity either.

Submission 2134

The NDIS, or disability support more generally, matters to me because:

despite what many NDIS representatives have told me, the services i require are not provided adequately, or at all in some cases, through medicare-funded health initiatives.

3. Overall concern: the bill shifts the ndis away from individualised support and toward cost control

i understand that the ndis must be sustainable and that fraud, exploitation, overcharging, and poor administration should be addressed.

however, i am concerned that this bill goes much further than fixing fraud or improving administration. It risks shifting the ndis away from a person-centred, individualised disability insurance scheme and toward a more restrictive, capped, standardised, and cost-controlled system.

i am concerned that disabled people, especially people with psychosocial disability, fluctuating disability, complex disability, neurodivergence, cognitive disability, chronic illness, and multiple impairments, may be harmed by these changes.

reform should protect the ndis, but it should not do so by reducing disabled people’s independence, safety, dignity, choice, control, or community participation.

Submission 2134

4. Concern: financial sustainability being placed into the objects of the Act

Relevant Bill provisions:

• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 60 — section 3(1)(d)
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 65 — proposed section 17B.

The Bill proposes to amend the objects of the Act so that NDIS supports are provided only “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme.”

I understand that financial sustainability matters. But I am concerned that placing this wording into the objects of the Act could make cost control a dominant legal principle in NDIS decisions.

The NDIS should be financially responsible, but sustainability should not be used to deny essential supports to people with disability.

cost control should focus on:

• fraud
• price gouging
• provider exploitation
• poor administration
• thin markets
• lack of early support
• service gaps that push people into crisis

It should not focus on reducing disabled people’s necessary supports.

I am concerned this could affect me, my family, or my community because:

As someone with a complex neurodevelopmental disability who has fluctuating capacity, my needs are under-represented and therefore already underfunded. If the government uses financial reasons to further cut my funding, I am others that I know are at risk of even more disadvantage.

I ask the Committee to recommend that financial sustainability must be balanced with strong protections for safety, dignity, independence, community participation, choice and control, and the rights of people with disability.

Submission 2134

Relevant Bill provisions: Schedule 1, Part 4, item 34 — proposed section 34A; Schedule 1, Part 6, item 68 — proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB); Schedule 3, Part 1, items 3–4 — proposed sections 34B and 45C.

I am concerned that the Bill gives too much power to the Minister to control major parts of the NDIS through legislative instruments.

The NDIS affects the safety, independence, housing, work, study, family life, community participation, and dignity of hundreds of thousands of Australians.

A single Minister should not have broad power to reduce funding categories, set maximum support amounts, control support intensity, set worker-to-participant ratios, alter pricing settings, or reshape the scheme without strong safeguards.

Major decisions about disability support should require:

• genuine consultation with disabled people and representative organisations
• transparent public evidence
• parliamentary scrutiny
• human rights impact assessment
• protections for psychosocial disability and complex disability
• review rights where a person’s supports are affected
• safeguards so cost control does not override safety, dignity, independence, and community participation

I am concerned about broad ministerial powers because:

Disabilities impact more than one person. It takes significant community cohesion to understand and properly administer disability supports. If the Minister is not themselves in receipt of disability funding and support, they cannot possibly make decisions which impact those of us who do, without gross miscalculation.

I ask the Committee to recommend stronger limits, oversight, consultation requirements, transparency, and review safeguards for any ministerial powers that affect NDIS funding, supports, pricing, eligibility, or planning.

6. Concern: repeal of Section 31 planning principles

Submission 2134

Relevant Bill provision:

Schedule 1, Part 6, item 66 — repeal of Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 3, which contains section 31.

I am concerned about the proposed repeal of Section 31 planning principles.

Section 31 is important because it recognises that NDIS plans should be individualised, directed by the participant, and support choice, control, independence, and community participation.

These principles are not minor administrative wording. They reflect the heart of what the NDIS is meant to be.

I am concerned that removing Section 31 risks weakening the person-centred nature of the scheme.

Individualised planning matters to me because:

e Like many others with complex neurodevelopmental disabilities, my needs are not only unmet by standardised care packages, in many cases they are worsened by them. I have sought assistance for the secondary impacts of my disability for over two decades, yet have only just begun to find supports that are useful. My early interactions with care providers made me more and more reluctant to seek support, to the point of becoming homeless multiple times rather than attempting to navigate the same standardised procedures and care providers which compounded my trauma.

I ask the Committee to recommend that Section 31 not be repealed, or that equivalent protections for individualised, participant-directed, flexible planning be kept clearly and directly in the Act.

Concern: supports must arise “directly” from an eligible impairment

Relevant Bill provisions:

Schedule 1, Part 3, item 31 — section 34(1)(aa); Schedule 4, item 6 — section 32L(2).

The Bill proposes to change the wording so that supports must address needs arising directly from an impairment or impairments for which the person meets the disability or early intervention requirements.

Submission 2134

I am concerned this could harm people with complex and overlapping disabilities.

Disability does not always fit into one neat diagnosis. Many people have multiple impairments that interact with each other. A person’s support needs may arise from the combined effect of psychosocial disability, neurodevelopmental disability, physical disability, chronic illness, trauma, cognitive disability, or other impairments.

If the NDIS only considers needs that arise “directly” from one eligible impairment, it risks ignoring the reality of how disability works in real life.

This matters to me because: My experience of disability is of a complex of many c-o-m-orbid conditions which took over twenty years to adequately diagnose. In reality, y autism and ADHD were so masked by secondary trauma and its symptoms that by the time I received support I had multiple chronic illnesses whose impacts are far-reaching and in themselves make actively managing my primary disability out of reach with my current funding and support constraints. Because these illnesses exacerbate my psychosocial impairments, as well as worsening the day to day impacts of my disability, I end up unable to access adequate assistance for my primary disability. It means that I am at risk of further fragility instead of being closer to living with greater independence and autonomy.

I ask the Committee to recommend that the Act continue to consider the whole person, including interacting impairments, environmental circumstances, and real-life functional impact.

8. Concern: support determinations could reduce funding across categories

Relevant Bill provision: Schedule 1, Part 4, item 34 — proposed section 34A.

The Bill would allow broad funding reductions for specified groups of supports through support determinations.

I am concerned that this could allow categories of support to be reduced across the scheme, without properly assessing each participant’s individual needs.

A person’s support should not be reduced simply because they fall into a support category targeted for cost reduction.

Broad funding reductions may especially harm people who rely on supports for:

Submission 2134

• community access
• daily living
• psychosocial recovery
• support coordination
• behaviour support
• assistive technology
• home modifications
• transport
• employment or study participation
• therapy or capacity building

If my supports, or supports used by people in my community, were reduced, the impact would be:

Overall reduction in my capacity and that of the entire system thus:

-Lower Individual capacity for employment. Despite holding multiple jobs and seeking employment assistance through mainstream providers and community network, I am still without adequate employed work which is suitable in the long-term for my disability. This leads to:

-Housing instability. Without adequate paid work, affording and accessing rental accommodation is incredibly difficult. This leads to:

-Further reduction in capacity and a lowering of my ability to find and perform paid work, which leads to:

-Exacerbating mental and chronic health issues, which reduces my employment capacity further, which leads to:

-A greater need for more supports and more funding. This puts further pressure on the NDIS system and at the same time removes my ability to participate in community and other aspects of life and society. This in turn leads to:

-Lowered economic functioning. By being unable to participate in the current job market or create new employment opportunities for others through self-employment, I am reducing our overall local, national and international economic health.

I ask the Committee to recommend that broad funding reductions not be allowed without individual assessment, review rights, transparent evidence, safety safeguards, and genuine consultation with disabled people.

Submission 2134

9. Concern: a support may be accepted as reasonable and necessary but still not fully funded

Relevant Bill provisions:

• Schedule 1, Part 4, item 34 — proposed section 34A(5);
• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 68 — proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB);
• Schedule 4, item 4 — proposed sections 32K(3C)-(3E).

I am concerned that the Bill may allow supports to be recognised as reasonable and necessary while still providing less funding than the actual cost of the support.

This creates a serious practical problem. A support that is only partly funded may not be accessible at all.

For many participants, partial funding is not real support. People on low incomes cannot simply pay the gap.

This could lead to people losing access to supports even where those supports are accepted as needed.

Partial funding would be a problem because: I and others in my position already live with significant deficits in our ability to participate financially. I am already having to prioritise meeting basic needs ( shelter, food, etc) over capacity-building supports because there isn’t adequate funding in my current plan.

I ask the Committee to recommend that where a support is found to be reasonable and necessary, funding should be sufficient to actually access that support.

10. Concern: evidence rules may downgrade lived experience and individual outcomes

Relevant Bill provision:

• Schedule 1, Part 6, item 73 — proposed sections 34(1E) and 34(1F).

The Bill proposes that when deciding whether a support is effective and beneficial, greater importance may be placed on published, peer-reviewed, and generalisable

Submission 2134

research. Research evidence is important. However, disability support is not always captured well by published research, and there is contradictory research.

Many supports, disabilities, and communities are under-researched. Psychosocial disability, rare conditions, complex disability, neurodivergence, trauma, and fluctuating conditions often do not fit neatly into generalised evidence.

I am concerned that lived experience, clinical judgement, and evidence that a support works for an individual person may be treated as less important.

This is especially concerning where a participant has already used a support and can show that it improved, maintained, or prevented decline in their functioning, safety, independence, or community participation.

A support that works for me, my family, or people I support is:Ecotherapy, somatic-based/complementary medicine and creative therapies

The evidence that it works is: When I have access to stable, safe accomodation outside of an urban setting, a combination of creative, somatic and hands-on interventions drastically improves my ability to move, interact with others in a calm way and accept nervous-system issues and other social disruptions with better flexibility. This gives me the ability to utilise other supports to improves my psychosocial and physical capacities.

I ask the Committee to recommend that lived experience, individual outcomes, clinical evidence, and participant history must not be downgraded below published research. Evidence rules must protect people with psychosocial, complex, rare, and under-researched disabilities.

11. Concern: “all appropriate treatment” before disability is considered permanent

Relevant Bill provisions: Schedule 1, Part 8, items 89, 91 and 92 — sections 24(5), 25(1B), and proposed section 25A.

The Bill proposes changes around permanence and “appropriate treatment”. I am concerned this could be especially harmful for people with psychosocial disability and other fluctuating or complex conditions.

Ongoing treatment does not mean a person does not have a permanent disability. A person may receive treatment for years and still have significant lifelong functional impairment.

Submission 2134

People should not be denied NDIS access because they have not completed treatment that is:

• unaffordable
• inaccessible
• unavailable in their area
• subject to long waitlists
• culturally unsafe
• retraumatising
• medically unsuitable
• ineffective for them
• only partially helpful
• destabilising
• not realistically available through the public system

This is particularly important for psychosocial disability. Many people with psychosocial disability have ongoing treatment, but still need practical disability supports to live safely and participate in the community.

Barriers to treatment can include: medical trauma, lack of specialists, misunderstandings due to cultural and identity issues, insufficient scientific studies on supports and their effectiveness, issues with psychosocial impairments being influenced by a person’s household or other responsibilities

I ask the Committee to recommend that people must not be denied NDIS access because they cannot access, afford, tolerate, or benefit from “appropriate treatment”. The legislation must clearly protect psychosocial disability and fluctuating disability.

Concern: plan suspension or revocation if participants are hard to contact

Relevant Bill provisions: Schedule 1, Part 7, items 79 and 83 — proposed sections 30(1A) and 40A.

I am concerned about provisions that allow a participant’s plan to be suspended, and potentially their participant status revoked, if they are not contactable.

Many people who most need the NDIS may also be the hardest to contact.

People may miss contact because of:

Submission 2134

● psychosocial disability ● mental health crisis ● hospitalisation ● homelessness ● family violence ● cognitive disability ● intellectual disability ● acquired brain injury ● autism ● ADHD/executive dysfunction ● language barriers ● digital exclusion ● poverty ● unsafe home environments ● lack of advocacy support ● changing phone numbers or addresses ● fear or trauma related to government systems

Suspending or revoking supports in these situations could make people less safe, not more accountable.

People may be hard to contact because:

-Both phone and email are incredibly draining for myself and others with psychosocial limitations. Any communication, but in particular interview-style or official correspondence is inevitably dysregulating and contributes a to reduced capacity for both social and basic life tasks.

-As someone who lives in a rural area, a lack of phone or internet service has been a significant barrier to receiving and replying to communication.

-My disability means that I am unable to clearly sense my needs during conversations due to interception issues. I am often so anxious about an interview or communication that by the time it happens I am exhausted and have reduced capacity.

-Both my primary disability and secondary chronic illness contribute to frequent shut-downs or freeze episodes during communications, meaning that my needs are often unable to be expressed.

-Mental health issues that result from a lack of support for my primary disability also play a large role in reducing my ability to participate in ongoing contact with NDIS representatives.

Submission 2134

I ask the Committee to recommend strong safeguards before any suspension or revocation, including supported outreach, multiple communication methods, nominee/contact checks, advocate involvement, crisis-sensitive communication, and protections for psychosocial disability, homelessness, family violence, and cognitive disability.

Concern: plan renewals and loss of rollover funds

Relevant Bill provisions: Schedule 1, Part 5, item 50 — proposed section 50A; Schedule 1, Part 5, item 58 — transitional treatment of reassessment dates as end dates.

I am concerned about replacing plan continuations with plan renewals where unused funds do not roll over.

People may have unused funds for reasons outside their control, including:

• provider shortages
• thin markets
• illness
• hospitalisation
• psychosocial disability
• burnout
• difficulty finding safe or suitable workers
• rural or regional access issues
• delays in assistive technology or home modifications
• administrative delays
• support coordinator turnover
• inability to organise supports without help

Unused funding does not always mean the person did not need the support. It may mean the system failed to provide accessible support.

Funds may go unused because:

-Providers are not available for long amounts of time

-navigating the NDIS system is so exhausting that it takes months to even get to the point at which I can spend the funds

Submission 2134

-fluctuating capacity means that there are long periods in which I am unable to use supports. If, by the time I am capable of accessing supports but my funding is no longer available, I miss out on chances to expand my capacity when I am able.

I ask the Committee to recommend safeguards so participants are not punished for unused funds caused by market failure, illness, crisis, provider shortages, administrative delay, or disability-related barriers.

Concern: caps on support intensity, funding, or worker ratios

Relevant Bill provisions: Schedule 1, Part 6, item 68 — proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB); Schedule 4, item 4 — proposed sections 32K(3B)-(3E).

I am concerned about powers to set maximum funding amounts, maximum support intensity, or worker-to-participant ratios.

caps may look fair on paper, but disability support needs vary greatly between people.

A person with complex disability, trauma, psychosocial disability, communication needs, behavioural support needs, high physical support needs, or unsafe family circumstances may need more support than a standard cap allows.

caps can also fail in rural, regional, and thin market areas where services cost more or are harder to access.

a standard cap would not work for me, my family, or my community because:

Long-term lack of support has created secondary chronic conditions which must be addressed as part of my overall care. This is because they worsen my impairments and thus cannot be treated adequately in isolation from them. On top of this, due to housing instability and family issues, after nearly 8 months I am barely able to access the supports that I require to achieve my plan goals, let alone be anywhere near reaching them.

i ask the committee to recommend that any caps or maximums must not override individual assessment, safety, complexity, trauma, fluctuating needs, or real-world service availability.

Submission 2134

15. Concern: shifting people to other service systems that may not exist or may not be accessible

Relevant Bill provisions: Schedule 1, Part 6, item 70 — proposed section 34(1)(g); Schedule 1, Part 9, items 96–98 — proposed section 25B and related access/revocation provisions.

The Bill strengthens the idea that some supports should be provided by other schemes or government service systems rather than the NDIS.

I understand that the NDIS should not replace every other public service. However, persons should not be pushed out of the NDIS and into systems that are not ready, not available, not accessible, or not designed to meet disability support needs.

Many mainstream systems already have:

• long waitlists
• strict eligibility rules
• limited funding
• crisis-only thresholds
• poor disability understanding
• lack of psychosocial supports
• lack of practical daily living support
• gaps between state and federal responsibility

People must not fall between systems because each system says another system is responsible.

I am concerned about being redirected to other systems because: in most cases I have been referred back and forth between services who say that they do not provide what I need, and I must go back to the other system who I was referred by. This has led to me isolating and refraining from attempting to contact any support services.I ask the Committee to recommend that no person should lose NDIS support unless another service is genuinely available, accessible, appropriate, funded, and able to meet their needs.

16. Concern: psychosocial disability must be explicitly protected

Submission 2134

Relevant Bill provisions: This concern relates across multiple provisions, including Schedule 1, Part 1 proposed section 9B; Part 6 proposed sections 34(1E)–(1F); Part 7 proposed section 40A; Part 8 proposed section 25A; and Part 9 proposed section 25B.

I am especially concerned about the impact of this Bill on people with psychosocial disability.

Psychosocial disability can involve fluctuating capacity, executive dysfunction, social withdrawal, crisis periods, trauma, hospitalisation, difficulty communicating, difficulty maintaining appointments, and difficulty navigating complex systems.

A person with psychosocial disability may appear articulate at times but still be unable to consistently manage daily living, appointments, paperwork, hygiene, housing, medication, food, transport, work, study, relationships, or community participation without support.

Psychosocial disability should not be pushed out of the NDIS through:

• treatment requirements
• narrow permanence rules
• artificial functional capacity assessments
• evidence rules that downgrade lived experience
• contact-based suspension
• assumptions that mainstream mental health services can replace disability support
• caps on support coordination or psychosocial recovery supports

Psychosocial disability support matters because: Many of us with psychosocial disabilities have a greater ability for certain social roles and tasks when their capacity is high. We have important insights and abilities which assist others in the community, however we can only fulfil these roles with adequate assistance.

I ask the Committee to recommend explicit protections for psychosocial disability, including recognition of fluctuating capacity, ongoing treatment, trauma, executive dysfunction, and the need for practical disability supports outside clinical treatment.

Submission 2134

I ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill be amended to:

• Keep Section 31 planning principles, or retain equivalent protections directly in the Act.
• Protect individualised, participant-directed, flexible planning.
• Ensure financial sustainability does not override safety, dignity, independence, choice and control, or community participation.
• Limit broad ministerial powers and require stronger parliamentary scrutiny.
• Require genuine disabled-led consultation before major rules, instruments, caps, pricing changes, support determinations, or eligibility changes.
• Remove or limit broad support determinations that reduce funding without individual assessment.
• Ensure participants have review rights where funding reductions or plan changes affect them.
• Amend evidence provisions so lived experience, individual outcomes, and clinical judgement are not downgraded.
• Protect psychosocial disability and fluctuating disability.
• Ensure people are not denied access because they cannot access, afford, tolerate, or benefit from “appropriate treatment”.
• Prevent suspension or revocation where participants are difficult to contact without strong safeguards.
• Ensure people are not redirected to other service systems unless those supports are actually available, appropriate, accessible, and funded.
• Ensure caps or maximums do not override individual assessment and safety.
• Protect carers and families from unsustainable unpaid support expectations.
• Focus reform on fraud, exploitation, price gouging, market failure, and administration — not cuts to essential participant supports.

18. Final message to the Committee

Please protect the NDIS as a true national disability insurance scheme.

The NDIS is not charity. Disability support is essential for safety, dignity, independence, and community participation.

Reform should strengthen the NDIS, not make it harder for disabled people to access the supports they need.

The most important thing I want the Committee to understand is:

Submission 2134

People with disabilities play just as important roles in our society and economy. Investing in us means investing in our community overall. We need to be protected from unfair conditions and economic disadvantage which reduces the supports that we need to contribute.

Sincerely,

Liza McGuigan