NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

NDIS participant concerns regarding fluctuating support needs and automated decision-making (Participant experience)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 9 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission

Summary of Key Concerns

This submission raises concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, particularly in relation to:

  • Limited consultation and scrutiny despite the scale and complexity of the proposed reforms.
  • Broad ministerial powers to reduce supports through support determinations under proposed section 34A, including concerns about exclusion from individual merits review and impact on those needing more complex care needs.
  • Proposed provisions affecting functionality and permanence may disadvantage individuals whose conditions are influenced environmentally; fluctuating needs; personal circumstances;
  • Restrictions preventing participant-requested plan reassessments under Schedule Part II emphasizing what’s ‘reasonable’ rather than personalized assistance,
  • Potential cuts community participation due reliance utilisation data without considering changing disability impacts life situations.
  • Reliance future NDIS Rules delegated legislation not yet publicly consulted.
  • Expanded automated decision-making processes under Section that inadequately account complexities related disabilities. The risk participants aged over already Scheme effectively removed instrument under Schedule Part 9 inadequate consideration adequacy aged care substitute individualised NDIS supports. I respectfully ask Committee ensure reforms carefully scrutinized supported strong safeguards developed genuine partnership with disability community.

Introduction I am writing this as an NDIS participant neurological disorder found preparing extremely difficult many families providers experienced process chaotic stressful overwhelming Despite these challenges wanted contribute because significant affect lives Supports safety people disability now into futures

Many do have available help understand complex lengthy explanatory materials or short consultation processes for cognitive neurologic psychosocial communication fatigue-related disabilities preparation submission like can require significant time energy functional capacity Expectation independent analyse Bill exceeding pages Explanatory Memorandum approximately within limited times

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

Submission 2302

may unintentionally exclude many disabled people from having a meaningful voice in reforms that directly affect them.

I strongly support the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). However, I am concerned that several measures in the Bill may have serious unintended consequences for participants, families, providers and the communities that support them.

Public discussion surrounding these reforms has also contributed to harmful narratives about disability, fraud and NDIS spending that have cast a shadow that will not be easily undone.

I respectfully ask the Committee to carefully consider the lived realities behind these reforms, and the considerable effort many participants have made simply to have their voices heard.

Key Concern 1 – Inadequate Consultation and Scrutiny

Why It Matters

The Bill is the third tranche of legislative amendments responding to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the independent review of the NDIS. It introduces extensive reforms affecting access, planning, pricing, reassessments, provider regulation, automation and funding arrangements across the Scheme. The Explanatory Memorandum is approximately 289 pages long and the Bill itself exceeds 100 pages Yet The Committee’s reporting date was initially set at June 6th , just one month after May 5 th . One month is insufficient for adequate scrutiny reform scale.The Bill relies heavily on future NDIS Rules Legislative instruments that have yet been drafted or publicly consulted Parliament being asked approve broad powers including power reduce fund categories supports before practical details known.Requested Changes I ask committee consider:

  • extending consultation scrutin timeframes legislation complexity; increase support during consult processes people disability; ensuring meaningful co-design community significant provisions commence improving transparency regarding content timing Future NDIS Rules delaying commencement major reform until key rules safeguards available.Key Concern Broad Powers Reduce SupportsWhy It Matters Schedule Part4 bill inserts proposed section which allows Minister make a legal instrument described as ‘support determination’ -to reduce funding specified groups supports scheme.Explanatory memorandum

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

Submission 2302

confirms that changes to funding as a result of support determinations are not subject to individual merits review, on the basis that they are legislative instruments of broad application rather than decisions directed at particular individuals. While this approach is consistent with the Administrative Review Council’s guidance on legislation-like decisions, it means that individual participants affected by percentage-based reductions in their support funding will have no avenue to challenge those reductions on the basis of their individual circumstances, support needs or the impact on their safety and wellbeing. The Minister has already flagged that social, community and civic participation supports are a primary target for reduction under section 34A. For many participants, these supports are not recreational. They may be essential for maintaining functional capacity, reducing isolation, supporting communication and emotional regulation, maintaining safety and wellbeing, and enabling participation in community life. For some participants with complex disabilities, community participation funding also contributes to supervision and safeguarding. Broad percentage-based reductions may affect participants very differently depending on their support needs, living circumstances and informal support availability. Reducing these supports without individual consideration risks increasing hospitalisation, crisis escalation, social isolation and increased reliance on other government systems.

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • stronger safeguards around the exercise of the ministerial determination power under section 34A; -transparent individual impact assessments before any funding reductions take effect;- the introduction of an individual review mechanism for participants materially affected by support determinations, to account for circumstances where a blanket reduction causes disproportionate harm;and-evidence-based evaluation of likely impacts before any determinations are made, including consideration of flow-on costs to health, housing and community systems.

Key Concern 3 — Functional Capacity and Eligibility Changes

Why It Matters

Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Bill inserts proposed section 9B which defines ‘functional capacity’ for purposes of NDIS Act Under proposed Section (1), person’s functiona

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

Submission 2302

Assessing functional capacity in a context that excludes environmental and personal circumstances, as far as possible, risks producing an artificial measure that does not reflect how disability actually operates in people’s lives. This may particularly disadvantage participants whose disabilities are heavily influenced by environmental barriers, fluctuating support needs, trauma, mental health impacts, or social and financial disadvantage.

Schedule 1, Part 8 introduces further significant changes by tightening the meaning of permanence. Proposed subsections 24(5) and 25(1B), read together with proposed section 25A, require that an impairment will only be considered permanent or likely to be permanent if the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for the impairment. Under proposed section 25A, treatment may be considered ‘appropriate’ —and therefore required— regardless of whether a person’s individual circumstances restrict them from accessing it.

I have personally experienced the dangers of this approach. I suffered severe adverse consequences including ICU admission prolonged hospitalisationfroma treatementconsidered best practicefor my conditionThis experience illustrates why legislative expectations around ‘all appropriate treatment’ cannot safelybe applied uniformly Treatmentsmaynotbesafe accessibleorappropiateforeveryindividualparticipantsmaybe face real pressureto undertake treatments potentially atsignificantpersonal risk—to satisfypermanencriteria It is also worth notingthatthe vast majorityof current NDIS participantshave already beenrequiredtodemonstrate permanencto access Scheme Applying tightened permanence requirements retrospectively—orat plan renewal—to people whohavealready satisfiedthathreshold representsan unnecessaryadministrative burden anda cost bothfors participantsands forAgencyitself.I amalso concernedtha costs associatedwith gathering evidence forevaluationsdemonstrating changes incircumstances maybe placeunfairburdenonparticipantstolower socioeconomicbackgroundswhomay unable afford specialist reports assessmentsoral legal assistance.Requested Changes I ask Committee consider:

  • revising definition functional capacityinproposedsection9B to ensureassessments appropriately recognisese environmental and support factors consistent withWHOICF model; strengtheningsafeguardsparticpantsfluctuatingandcomplexdisabilities; ensuring allappropriatetreatmentrequirement proposed section 25A includes robust individual exemptions situations where treatment unsafe clinically contraindicated financially inaccessible or geographically unavailable; ensuring permanent provisions do not unfairly exclude particants whose conditions require ongoing treatement maintainfunctionalcapacity; ensured that eligibility assessment processes impose prohibitive financialcostson participats from disadvantaged backgrounds.

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

Submission 2302

Key Concern 4 - Restrictions on Reassessments and Reasonable and Necessary Supports

Why It Matters

Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Bill significantly restricts participant-requested plan reassessments. Under proposed section 48A, scheduled reassessments can now occur where there is no significant alteration over time to a person’s living arrangements, education level, work status, informal care needs; or if they have been in receipt of services from an intermediary such as their case manager. The new rules also require requests must come directly through the participant themselves, as opposed to being initiated via intermediaries like support coordinators who may rely upon them to navigate administrative processes.

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

Submission 2302

communication and emotional regulation, maintaining safety and wellbeing, assisting with daily living, and enabling participation in community life. Many participants rely on these supports to prevent deterioration, crisis escalation, hospitalisation and increased reliance on other systems. A participant not fully utilising community participation funding during a plan period does not necessarily mean the support was unnecessary. Utilisation may be affected by hospitalisation, health deterioration, fatigue or burnout, provider shortages, transport barriers, crisis periods or other disability-related circumstances entirely outside the participant’s control. Reducing future funding on the basis of utilisation data alone, without properly considering these factors, risks creating punitive outcomes for participants whose disabilities or circumstances temporarily affected their ability to engage with supports. The Office of Impact Analysis has identified that certain cohorts of participants may be most disproportionately affected by reductions to social and community participation funding, raising serious equity concerns about the impact of these reforms across the disability community. The proposed replacement —the $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund and the broader Foundational Supports framework—is not yet operational. Reducing supports before alternatives are established risks creating significant gaps in care. Of note,$4 billionof the$10billionNational AgreementonFoundationalSupportsisalreadyallocatedtothethrivingKidsprogramforchildrenunder9,anddoesnotrepresentareplacementforc communityparticipationsupportsforalladults.Thepositionofparticipantsaged65andoverwhoarealreadyontheschemesisof particular concern, an disaddressedin detailinKeyConcern8below.RequestedChangesI ask the Committee to consider:

  • protecting access to community participation supports while foundational supports () (InclusiveCommunitiesFundaredemonstratedtobeoperational; • ensuring planutilisedata is notrelieduponinsolationwhenassessingfuture support needs ,anthatrelevantcontextualfactorsaretorequiredtotakeinto account; • requiring transparent individualimpact assessmentsbeforeanyreduction insupport determinationfundings takeseffect ; • ensuring reformsdono unintentionallyincrease long-termsocialhealthandeconomic costsby reducing preventative supports; an d • ensur ing that comm unity particip ation suppor ts ar enot reducedor removed for participants aged over who a re already onthe Scheme, and th at continuity of thosesupp ort s i sguaranteedforthecohort.

Key Concern 6 — Reliance On Future Rules And Delegated Legislation Why It Matters Many important aspects o f t he Bill’s reforms are deferredto future NDISRules legislative instruments anda ndadministrativeprocesses. This approach ist like bakinga cake with halfth e ingredients andre hoping itturnsoutfitforconsumption.

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

Submission 2302

Key matters left to future rules include: methods applicable to functional capacity assessments; criteria & thresholds relevant to sections 9B(2), etc.; conditions when all appropriate treatment is undertaken per Section 25A4); specific groups targeted via Support Determination under Secs A; areas subjectable to Automation as outlined at Sec C. Parliament asked to approve broad powers before knowing how they’ll be applied practically. This limits Parliament’s ability fully scrutinize reforms’ practical impact until legislation passes. It also means disability community providers participants won’t know governing rules until later—potentially long after law takes effect.

Requested Changes

I ask Committee consider:

  • Increasing transparency regarding content timing consultation processes;
  • Including more substantive safeguarding directly within primary legislation rather than through delegated instrumen ts;
  • Ensuring that all delegat ed legislat ion remains sub jectto appro priate parliamentaryscrutiny and disallowance.

Key Concern #7 —Automation Administrative Decision-Making

Why it Matters

Schedule Part of the Bill inserts proposed section B, authorizing CEO NDIA use computer programs take administrative action including discretionary decisions evaluative judgements designated by Minister. While admin efficiency a legitimate objective expansion automated decision-making NDIS planning raises significant concerns. Decisions profoundly affect participant safety housing stability mental health access supports daily functioning often involve complex individual contextual factors don’t translate well standard computational process es. Participants with communication barriers cognitive impairments psychosocial disabilities neurological or limited capacity navigate complex systems may particularly disadvantaged highly automatd proces ses Dr Georgia van Toorn noted where computationally supported must carefully designed accommodate individu al circumstances if algorithms determine who gets support without entire apparatus open scrutiny . The provisions in proposed Section 59B permit automation evalua tive judgments discretion ary deci sions while Sec D provides some oversight requirements right to request personal review autom ated decis ions adequacy those safeguards will depend heavily on rules instruments made under bill which are not yet available for scrutin y.

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

Submission 2302

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • limiting the categories of discretionary or evaluative decisions that may be automated under section 59B;
  • ensuring meaningful and accessible human review pathways remain available to all participants, including those with communication, cognitive or other barriers; and
  • strengthening transparency requirements around automated decisions, including requiring proactive disclosure of which decisions are being automated and the criteria applied.

Key Concern 8 — Forced Exit from the Scheme for Participants Aged 65

and Over

Why It Matters

A further and serious concern relates to participants aged 65 and over who are already on the Scheme. Under Schedule 1, Part 9 of the Bill, the Minister may declare aged care an alternative support service by NDIS Rule, which could render a participant ineligible for the NDIS, or result in the revocation of their participant status, on the basis that aged care is available to meet their needs. The Explanatory Memorandum confirms this expressly, stating that the Minister may declare alternative support services by reference to a particular service, such as aged care. This is not a voluntary transition. It is a mechanism by which existing participants, who have already had their disabilities formally recognised and funded under the Scheme, may be effectively removed from it by ministerial instrument. This risk is compounded by proposed section 30(1A), which expands the CEO power to revoke participant status where a plan has been suspended for 90 days under proposed section 40A,a provisionthatcould disproportionately affect older participants with cognitiveorcommunication impairmentswhomaystruggleto maintain contactwiththeAgency.Theagedcare system wasnotdesignedtomeetcomplex,disability-specificsupportneeds.Itisanunder significant pressure,witlenyassessmentdelaysandaservicemodel built around age-related needsrather than thedisabledspecific funding thatisNDISparticipantsrelyon.Forindividualswhosedisabilitieswereformally recognizedfundedundertheNDSIspriortoturning65removalfromthescheme maybe representasevereandreversible reductionintheir quality,specificitycontinuityof theirsupportTheExplanatoryMemorandumacknowledgesthat NDISparticipansthereableaccess morefundings throughthenDSDthanthroughagecarersystemwhen theyturnredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material. yedespite this acknowledged disparity,this cohort does not appear t havebeen meaningfully considered in thereformedesign.Icannotfindanyevidence thatFoundationalSupportswould be available toparticipantsfollowing removal from these schemeinsituationsnorwouldtheyautomatically qualifyfor aged care supports. This may lead to a person effectively having nosupports at all, and place themat great risk, or require hospitalisationinterimplace further burden on the health systems.Requested Changes I ask Committee consider:

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

Submission 2302

  • ensuring that no participant whose disability was formally recognised under the NDIS can be removed from the Scheme solely on the basis of age or eligibility for aged care; • requiring that any declaration of aged care as an alternative support service under Schedule 1, Part 9 be subject to individual assessment of whether aged care can genuinely meet that participant disability-specific support needs; • strengthening review rights for participants whose status is revoked under proposed section 30(1A), including additional safeguards for participants with cognitive or communication impairments; and • ensuring that Foundational Supports are explicitly available to participants who are removed from the Scheme upon turning 65, and that those supports are adequate to meet their disability-related needs.

Conclusion The long-term sustainability of the NDIS is vital —for participants, families, and communities benefitting from a well-functioning scheme.I do not dispute reform’s necessity However,sustainability should not come at fairness’, accessibility’participant safety,’or fundamental people-with-disability rights expense.The measures in this Bill currently drafted risk producing serious unintended harms complex support least capacity navigate administrative challenges greatest dependence Scheme I respectfully ask Committee ensure reforms carefully scrutinised supported strong safeguarded genuine partnership community In considering these reforms,I ask Committee closely consider framework remains consistent objects principles National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (Cth)including:

  • section which provides people with disability participate social economic life extent ability •section recognises same right other members Australian society determine best interests choice control •section recognise role family carer significant persons informal supports replace reasonable necessary funded supports noting many participants have no informal supports •section recognised participation civic life;and •section as amended by bill incorporates principles relating participation planning Australia obligations Convention Rights Persons Disabilities CRPD Thank you committee opportunity make submission time taken experiences concerns like me.