Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
To: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee date: May 29th , year : [year] POSITION: The committee should recommend against passing this bill as it stands now. Fraud measures are separate from those affecting access, service availability, funding rights etc., so these provisions should remain distinct.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2195
Recommendation 6: Strengthen safeguards before plan suspension or revocation,
including multiple accessible contact attempts, plain-English notices/ letters, reasonable extensions, supported decision-making, advocacy referral and urgent review rights. Recommendation 7: Do not narrow, cap or redirect NDIS supports on the assumption that foundational supports or mainstream services are available unless the Government can demonstrate that those supports are funded , available in a way suitable to individual needs .
Why this matters in practice : A regional family example My daughter has Level three autism and non-verbal speech therapy . We have had several months without speech therapy recently due start with new therapist In Hervey Bay waitlists some services up -to twelve eighteen month since December we fallen behind learning AAC communication trialing devices applications our daughter Some will argue telehealth is meaningful substitute every child young level complex communication may engage person computer screen particularly type of therapy service technically exist does mean it access appropriate effective meet children families needs also investigated fly-in/fly-out service quoted $436 per session did proceed because cost appeared excessive taxpayer parent relying NDIs believe families should unreasonable costs simply local services unavailable This why concerned provisions narrowing permanence treatment functional capacity necessary supports renewal funding caps applied law future administrative rules treat supports when actually cannot access them treats equivalent when child cannot engage result sustainability missing critical services support development
Foundational Supports must before narrowed I am changes access planning what defined reasonable necessary supports assume other systems future foundational supports be available many regions communities these do yet practical accessible timely Reform not create gap where no longer supported through NDIS but alternative health education early childhood community systems
did not proceed because the cost appeared excessive. As a taxpayer, as an parent on reliance NDIS belief families should not forced into unreasonable costs simply because local services are unavailability. This concern about provisions that narrow how permanent ,treatment function capacity, necessary and renewals funding caps apply . If laws or future administrative rules treat supports availability when family can’t actual access them equate to mode when child unable engage with it results in unsustainable situation children will miss out crucial services affecting their development.
Foundational Supports must exist before NDIS supports are narrowed Changes assumptions made by reforms regarding access plans definition of ‘reasonable’ may imply existence broader system’s foundation supports regional areas lacking such infrastructure reform sequence safely if foundations mainstream services ready reducing NDIS access or supports won’t meet needs Reducing NDIs does remove disability-related need shifts burden onto already under pressure families schools hospitals child development mental health protection state-funded services This is true sustainability; It’s cost-shifting risks creating higher long-term costs crisis carer burnout developmental delay breakdown.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2195
Schedule 1 - Access, Planning and ‘Reasonable and Necessary’ Supports
I am concerned that Schedule 1 may make it easier for decision-makers to treat supports, treatment options or other service systems as ‘available’ even when they are not practically available to the participant. For regional families, the gap between “available on paper” and “available in reality” can be significant.It can include long waitlists, therapist turnover, limited provider choice, travel burdens,cost barriersand a child’s inabilityto engage through telehealth.TheBillshouldbe amended sothat decisions abouttreatment.functional capacityor supportsshouldconsider practical availabilityandsuitabilityforthe individualparticipant.This should includelocation.waitlistscost.provideravailability.participantneedsand whetherthesupportcanactuallybedeliveryedinawaytheperson canus use.Regional participants shouldnot have their accesstosuitable services impacted further.A person should notheadvantaged becausetheyhave nota cessed treatments orsupportsthatare unavailable.unaffordable.clinicallyinappropriate.developmentallyunsuitableora inaccessible. This is also importantwhen considering unspent funds.Inregional areas.underspendingmay reflect serviceshortages.longwaitlists.providers turn over.lack of suitable therapists.travelbarriers.or ac hild’s incapacityengagewith availableservice modes.Unspent funding shoulnot automatically betreatedas evidence thatsupports were unnecessary.Participants anda ndfamilies sho uthetain genuine ‘choiceanda control’over providers theyuse.Fora non-speakingchildorperso nwith complexcommunication needs,a therapi stoprovideris notinterchangeable.Trust.rapporth communication style andsuitabilitymatter.Families shouldnottobe forced to acceptaprovid erwho cannot meet theperson’s needssafelyandeffectively.Thisis why choiceandocontrol matters.Fore parents, it isan indulgence.It isthe abilityto choosewho supports your child who entersyour home,and whoyoutrustt o help you rchil dcommunicate.learn.regulateandparticip ate.Any parentwould understandthe importanceofthat choice. For children.decisions about access.planningandreasonab leanecessary supportsm ust consider developmental timing.A delay in therapies (i.e occupational therapyandspeechtherapy)or earlyintervention isn ot neutral.Thesesupportsarenot simplytherapychoi ces.They are themeanst bywhich a ch ildcan expressneeds.make choices.partic ipat e.support regulation an dbehaviour.build independenceandbe understood.Investmentin communic ationane arly intervention suppor tmay reduc efuturesupportneeds.I am also concerned that changes t o‘reasonable anda necessarysupports’m ay increase expectations on families.especiallyparents ofchildren with significant disability.Allparent ssuppo rt.teachanda carefor theirchild ren.However,s upportinga chi ldwith Level 3 autism.complexcommunication needs.sensory nee ds andsignificant developmentalsupp ortneedsinvolvesalevelo fcare.coordination.supervision.advocacy andre th erapeutic implementation far beyond ordinary parenting.Parent s already provide extensive unpaidsupp orts.The law should not assumefamilies can safelyorsustainably replacefundeddisability supportswithout considering carer burnout.parentworkforceparticipation.familywellbeing. sibling impactsand the child’s long-term development. Overthe pastnine days, Ihave averaged aroundfour hoursof sleepanight— somenights more.some nights less.Due tomy daughter’s need sthis isar egularoccurrence for us.Thisisnotordinary parent ing; it ist full-time disabilit y-relatedca re.T heCommitteeshouldalso recommend amendments tore ensure supportsa r enot refused because an overly narrowreading oft h e“directl arise”fromane ligibleimpairment.Children do noth earcien ce in neatlegislativecategories.Autism.communication.sensorineeds.develop mental delay.anxiety.behaviour.environment anda ndfamilycontextinteract.Thelegislationmust allow decision-makers t o considerthewhole
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2195
person and uphold the rights of people with disability. We all have a right to autonomy, choice, safety, dignity, respect, accessibility and inclusion.
Ministerial Powers to reduce or cap supports
I am particularly concerned about powers that would allow funding reductions or caps for groups or categories categoriesof supports. Across-the-board reductions may appear administratively simple, but they do not reflect individual needoraccessibility localservices A fundingcapintensitylimitthatisadequateforoneparticipantcouldbe harmfulfornanother Forchildrenwithautismcapacitybuildingsupportssuchasspeechtherapyoccupational therapypsychologybehaviour supportparent coachingandcommunicationsupports canbefoundational Reducing supportswithoutindividual assessmentrisksdelaying communicationindependence safetyrelegationparticipation Itmayalsoincreaselongterm(andinsomecaseslife long)relianceonmore intensive services Any powerto reducercapsupportsshouldrequirepublished evidenceconsultationpeopledisability families humanrightschildimpactassessment parliamentaryscrutiny clear exceptions individuallsafety assessment written reasons accessmeritsreview Functional Capacity Assessments Framework Planning I supportthe principleunderstanding person’sfunctional needsbutconcerned standardised functional capacity assessments become blunt instrument if it doesnot capture how disability presents in real lifeFor autistic childrenfunctionalitycan varyacross settings people sensory environments communications demands fatigue regulation Assessment excludes context misunderstands child actual supportneeds Functionalcapacity assessmust be co designed developmentally appropriate trauma informed culturally safe suitable with communication disabilities They must consider assistive technology communicative access sensory needs behaviour as communication intermittent irregular needs familycontext practical availability of supports No participant should lose accesorfunding because an assessment tool has not been validated for their disability age group or circumstances Schedule 2 and Schedule3 Integrity Provider Regulation Pricing Automated decision making I support targeted action against fraud exploitation unsafe providers However, fraud integrity measures directed at wrongdoing should participantsfamilies feel presumed guilty regionalproviders withdraw administrative burden risk too high Providerregulationshouldn’taccidentally reduce choiceaccessin regionareas As someone whohas accessedservicesfrom local regional national providersexperience smaller are more ethical provide better services Also concerned about automatedadministrativedecisionmaking pricing powers affect access tosupports claims plan management funding without transparency review Anyautomateddecision-making transparent explainable auditable subject human review Participants understand why made challenge Robodebt demonstrates serious risks relying on automation complex humanservice systemswithouttransparency accountability meaningfulhumanreview Automation may have administrativeroleshould replace human judgement where a decision affects person’sdisability rightsor access essential services Plan Suspension Information Requests Safeguards IunderstandandsupportthatNDIAand Government need information make decisions however plansuspension revocation severe consequence missing email admin deadline Families
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2195
caring for children with a disability are often overwhelmed and may miss correspondence because of crisis,
caring load, illness, housing instability, digital access barriers or administrative confusion. Before suspension or revocation, the law should require multiple accessible contact attempts, plain-English communication, reasonable extensions, supported decision-making, referral to advocacy or nominee support, and access to urgent review. A plan should not be suspended where the consequence would risk harm, loss of therapy continuity, loss of supports or family breakdown.
Schedule 5 - Transitional Rules and Future rule-making
I am concerned about broad future rule-making powers and transitional arrangements where key details may bef left to rules, instruments or administrative decisions made after the Bill is passed. For a Scheme as significantastheNDISParliamentshouldnotpassbroadenablingpowerswithoutknowinghowtheywillaffectaccessplanningchildrenregionalparticipantsandreviewrights.Anytransitionalarrangementsshouldbetimelimitedsubjecttoconsultationandaaccompaniedbyaccessibleinformation/explanation.Rulesthatmateriallyeffectaccesstundingreviewrightsorsupportcategoriesshoulndotproceedwithoutcodesignpeopledisabilityfamilies.
Conclusion
I believe thenDISneedsbesustainable;thefutureofpeopledisabledependonit.Howeverinbecoming sustainablewemustensurethenDISHremaintstrueitspurpose: supporting people with disability liveautonomydignityrespectsafetyincluionchoice.SustainabilitycannotmeasuredonlythroughreducedgrowthorshorttermsavingsItmustalsoconsiderhumanlongtermsystemcostsdelayedsupportsreduceareerventioncarerburnoulostdevelopmentalopportunitiesredudeddependenceincreasedcrismdemandelsewhereinsystems.FormyfamilyspeechtherapyotherinterventionsupportsnoluxuriesCommunicationsupportisanoptionalextraTheyhelpnonspeakingchildcommunicateparticipateregulatelearnmakechoicesandbeunderstoodthesesupporservicesreasonablenecessaryensuremydaughterothershavechancefulfillingleveleachusrightEarlyinterventionoftenthedifferencebetweengreaterfutureindpendencelifelongsupporthneed.IencouragetheCommitteetospeaktheirlocalconstituentsandsfamileswhoaffectedthesechangesManyfamiliedeplyconcernedaboutwhatthesereformsmaymeanfortheirlovedonesFoundationalreformshouldstrengthensystemwithoutweakeningrightsstabilityhumanitypeople relyitonAsfamilieswereaskingreasonablenecessarynothingmorenothinglessIfully supportstrongersafeguardsinrelationtofraudintegralitiesasuresIdontwantseefamilysparticipants orSchemeitselftakenadvantageof. IaskthecommittetorecommendthatBillnotpassedcurrentformGovernment undertakegenuineaccessiblecodesignedconsultationbeforelegislatingshapeslifepeopledisabledchildrensfamiliesgenerations.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2195
Appendix A - Bill provisions addressed
| Bill area | Relevant concern in this submission | Requested change |
|---|---|---|
| schedule_1_access_and_planning_functional_capacity_reasonable_necessary_supports & Real-world access barriers,family expectations,“directly arises” test,reassessments and underspend caused_by_service_access_issues.& Require practical availability and suitability to be considered ; protect review rights ; consider whole person needs and family_carer impacts. | ||
| schedule_2_fraud_compliance_provider_regulation & Support_for fraud action ,but_concern about participant burden and provider withdrawal_in regional_areas .& Use targeted,risk_proportionate regulation that improves safety without reducing regional_availability or participant choice.scheduled_governance_pricing_and_automated_administration & Concern_about pricing powers and automated decisions affecting supports_without_transparency. | Require transparency,human_review,auditability,written reasons and merits review where_rights_or funding are affected.schedule_4_framework_planning_implementation & Concern_that new planning arrangements_may commence before assessment_tools and safeguards_are co_designed_validated. |
Appendix B - Documents and sources reviewed
- Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry page: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/NDISFutureGenBill
- Parliament of Australia Bill page : bttps//www apb QPY au/parHamentary eusjness/sms Legjs!atjon/sms search Resu !ts /Res u l t ?bl d-r7487
- Senate guidance Making a submission :https // www .aph gov-au Parliamentary Business CommitteesSenateMaking_a_submission
- Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No652025 _26 :https // wWw aphgovau Parliam ent aryBusinessBills_Legislation/bd bd2526{26bdO6S
- Department_of Health Disability_and Ageing fact sheet:bttsp·/ /ww healthQPy au/resources/publications ndis-amendment-securiog-the-ndjs-for-future-generations-bill-2026- fact_sheet
- NDIS Securing the_NDIS_for future generations: hitsps:/www.ndis gova n ndis_laws/securing_ndis_future_generations Queenslanders_with_Disability Network summary:hittps:qdn orgauecuring_the_ ndis_futurergenerations_bill/ team_dsc analysis Legislation deep-dive Access and planning:bhtps://teamdsc com ao resourceslegisl ation-deep -dive-access-and-planning group with_D is ability Australia advocate discussion:http s//pwdorgau what-you need-to know-aboutthe_n dis bill advocates-unpack-thesweeping-changes/ NDIS Review Final Report: bttps · / / www nd jsrev iew gov m1/sites {det a l lerres/resource/download/wocl<iog-t ogether-n djs-rev;ew-Uool-ceport pdt UN Convention on the Rights of Personswith Disabilities :https //social.desa.un.org/issues/disabilit y/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-personswith-disabilities-crpd WHO_and UNICEF Global report_on children_w ith_developmental_disabili ties : https://ww unicef org media/45016{fileGlobal- re portonchildren-with-developmen taldis abilities203.pdf