NDIA Accountability Project

NDIS participant concerns regarding fluctuating support needs and automated decision-making

‹ PrevPage 1 of 9 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 2302

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

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 the exclusion of individual merits review and the impact on participants with complex support needs.
  • Proposed functional capacity and permanence provisions in Schedule 1, Parts 1 and 8 that may disadvantage participants whose disabilities are influenced by environmental barriers, fluctuating support needs, and individual circumstances.
  • Restrictions on participant-requested plan reassessments under Schedule 1, Part 2, and increasing emphasis on what is ‘reasonable for the Scheme’ rather than individualised support needs.
  • Potential reductions in community participation supports and inappropriate reliance on utilisation data without properly considering fluctuating disability impacts and life circumstances.
  • Reliance on future NDIS Rules and delegated legislation that have not yet been publicly consulted on.
  • Expanded use of automated decision-making processes under proposed section 59B that may inadequately account for complex disability-related circumstances.
  • The risk that participants aged 65 and over who are already on the Scheme may be effectively removed from it by ministerial instrument under Schedule 1, Part 9, without adequate consideration of the inadequacy of aged care as a substitute for individualised NDIS supports.

I respectfully ask the Committee to ensure reforms are carefully scrutinised, supported by strong safeguards, and developed in genuine partnership with the disability community.

Introduction

I am writing this submission as an NDIS participant with a neurological disorder who found preparing this submission extremely difficult. Like many participants, families and providers, I have experienced this process as chaotic, stressful and overwhelming — Despite these challenges, I wanted to contribute because these reforms will significantly affect the lives, supports and safety of people with disability now and into the future.

Many participants do not have supports available to help them understand complex legislation, lengthy explanatory materials, or short consultation processes. For people with cognitive, neurological, psychosocial, communication or fatigue-related disabilities, preparing a submission like this can require significant time, energy and functional capacity. The expectation that participants can independently analyse a Bill exceeding 100 pages and an Explanatory Memorandum of approximately 289 pages within limited timeframes

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 16 June 2026, just one month after the Bill’s introduction on 14 May 2026. One month is insufficient for adequate scrutiny of reforms of this scale.

The Bill also relies heavily on future NDIS Rules and legislative instruments that have not yet been drafted or publicly consulted on. Parliament is being asked to approve broad legislative powers — including the power to reduce funding across categories of supports — before many practical details are known.

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • extending consultation and scrutiny timeframes for legislation of this complexity;
  • increasing support during the consultation processes for people with disability;
  • ensuring meaningful co-design with the disability community before significant provisions commence;
  • improving transparency regarding the content and timing of future NDIS Rules; and
  • delaying commencement of major reform provisions until key rules and safeguards have been publicly consulted on and made available.

Key Concern 2 — Broad Powers to Reduce Supports

Why It Matters

Schedule 1, Part 4 of the Bill inserts proposed section 34A, which allows the Minister to make a legislative instrument — described as a ‘support determination’ — to reduce funding for specified groups of supports across the Scheme. The Explanatory Memorandum

Submission 2302

classifies changes to funding resulting from support determinations as not subject to individual merits review because these changes represent legislative instruments with broad application rather than decisions directed at specific individuals.

Although this approach aligns with guidance provided by the Administrative Review Council regarding legislation-like decisions, it implies that participants affected by percentage-based reductions in their support funding will lack any opportunity to contest those cuts based on their unique situations, needs for support, or effects on safety and wellbeing.

The Minister has indicated previously that supports related to social engagement, community involvement, and civic participation constitute an area where reductions under section 34A may be prioritized. For numerous participants, such assistance isn’t merely recreational; instead, it might serve crucial roles like preserving functionality, reducing loneliness, facilitating communication and emotional regulation, ensuring security and wellness, and promoting active citizenship within communities. In particular cases involving people facing complex disabilities, funds allocated towards communal activities also play vital parts in oversight measures and protection protocols.

Percentage-wide decreases could influence various participants distinctly depending upon differing levels of needed help, living conditions, availability of non-formal backing systems. Implementing these cutbacks without taking into account personal factors poses potential dangers including heightened hospital admissions rates, worsening crises leading up to escalatory events, greater degrees of isolation socially speaking along side increased dependence placed onto other governmental frameworks.

Requested Changes The author requests the Committee’s attention toward considering:

  • Implementation of more robust protections concerning how ministerial determination powers outlined in Section 34A are exercised;
  • Conductance of clear-cut evaluations assessing individual impacts prior implementation of funding reduction initiatives;
  • Establishment of a formal review process specifically tailored for those significantly impacted by support determinations so as address scenarios wherein uniform cuts lead disproportionately adverse outcomes;
  • Undertaking thorough research-based analyses estimating probable consequences ahead any decisions being finalized incorporating contemplation about subsequent costs affecting healthcare provision sectors alongside housing provisions plus community infrastructure networks.

Key Concern 3 — Functional Capacity and Eligibility Changes

Why It Matters

Schedule 1 Part 1 introduces proposed section 9B defining ‘functional capacity’ within context governed by NDIS Act regulations. As per proposal found under subsection (1) from this new clause: An individual’s functional capability regarding an activity is characterized through their ability perform said task independently—without reliance upon others’ aid nor technological aids or alterations—and ideally amidst environments minimizing influence stemming either personally derived challenges faced or external environmental conditions encountered. This structure omits essential elements typically acknowledged globally accepted disability assessment methodologies such World Health Organization International Classification Of Functioning Disability And Health model known commonly abbreviated ICF which explicitly acknowledges that functionality results interplay between innate abilities possessed along side surrounding societal influences experienced daily.

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 and prolonged hospitalisation, from a treatment considered ‘best practice’ for my condition. This experience illustrates why legislative expectations around ‘all appropriate treatment’ cannot safely be applied uniformly. Treatments may not be safe, accessible or appropriate for every individual, and participants may face real pressure to undertake treatments — potentially at significant personal risk — to satisfy permanence criteria.

It is also worth noting that the vast majority of current NDIS participants have already been required to demonstrate permanence to access the Scheme. Applying tightened permanence requirements retrospectively — or at plan renewal — to people who have already satisfied that threshold represents an unnecessary administrative burden and cost, either for participants or for the Agency itself.

I am also concerned that the costs associated with gathering evidence for assessments and demonstrating changes in circumstances may place an unfair burden on participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who may be unable to afford specialist reports, asessments or legal assistance.

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • revising the definition of functional capacity in proposed section 9B to ensure assessments appropriately recognise environmental and support factors, consistent with the WHO ICF model;
  • strengthening safeguards for participants with fluctuating and complex disabilities;
  • ensuring the ‘all appropriate treatment’ requirement in proposed section 25A includes robust individual exemptions for situations where treatment is unsafe, clinically contraindicated, financially inaccessible or geographically unavailable;
  • ensuring permanence provisions do not unfairly exclude participants whose conditions require ongoing treatment to maintain functional capacity; and
  • ensuring that eligibility assessment processes do not impose prohibitive financial costs on participants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

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, unscheduled reassessments will only be permissible where there has been a significant and ongoing alteration in the participant’s functional capacity, or a significant and ongoing change in their living, education, work or informal support arrangements.

Importantly, requests must now be made by the participant directly, or by their plan nominee or guardian — they can no longer be initiated by intermediaries such as support coordinators, even where a participant may rely on such support to navigate administrative processes.

While I understand the concern that unscheduled reassessments have been a driver of spending growth, the proposed restrictions may cause significant harm to participants whose conditions deteriorate gradually, whose support needs fluctuate unpredictably, or whose circumstances change in ways that may not easily satisfy the legislative thresholds.

Many participants with neurological conditions, psychosocial disability or episodic health conditions experience variable functional capacity that may not constitute a ‘significant and ongoing’ change at any single point in time, yet cumulatively results in substantially increased support needs.

The Bill also increases emphasis on what is ‘reasonable for the Scheme’ to fund, with Schedule 1, Part 6 amending the reasonable and necessary supports provisions to require consideration of factors including scheme sustainability, consistency with other government-funded social service systems, and value for money. This risks shifting decision-making away from individualised support needs and increasing reliance on budget-driven limitations.

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • retaining flexible reassessment pathways that appropriately account for the cumulative or episodic nature of fluctuating disability impacts;
  • ensuring that participants who rely on intermediaries or supporters to navigate administrative processes are not disadvantaged by the restriction on who may request a reassessment;
  • preserving the primacy of individualised assessment in determining reasonable and necessary supports; and
  • strengthening procedural fairness safeguards around reassessment decisions.

Key Concern 5 — Impact on Community Participation, Inclusion and Disability Supports

Why It Matters

As noted above, the Minister has indicated that the support determination power under section 34A will be used to significantly reduce funding for social, community and civic participation supports —

For many participants, community participation supports are not recreational or optional. They are essential for maintaining functional capacity, reducing isolation, supporting

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, rasing 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 billion of the $10 billion National Agreement on Foundational Supports is already allocated to the Thriving Kids program for children under 9, and does not represent a replacement for community participation supports for adults.

The position of participants aged 65 and over who are already on the Scheme is of particular concern, and is addressed in detail in Key Concern 8 below.

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • protecting access to community participation supports while foundational supports and the Inclusive Communities Fund are established and demonstrated to be operational;
  • ensuring plan utilisation data is not relied upon in isolation when assessing future support needs, and that relevant contextual factors are required to be taken into account;
  • requiring transparent, individual impact assessments before any reduction in support determination funding takes effect;
  • ensuring reforms do not unintentionally increase long-term social, health and economic costs by reducing preventative supports; and
  • ensuring that community participation supports are not reduced or removed for participants aged 65 and over who are already on the Scheme, and that continuity of those supports is guaranteed for this cohort.

Key Concern 6 — Reliance on Future Rules and Delegated Legislation

Why It Matters

Many important aspects of the Bill’s reforms are deferred to future NDIS Rules, legislative instruments and administrative processes. This approach is like baking a cake with half the ingredients and hoping it turns out fit for consumption.

Submission 2302

Key matters left to future rules include: the methods, criteria and thresholds applicable to functional capacity assessments under proposed section 9B(2) and (3); the circumstances in which a person may be taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment under proposed section 25A(4); the specific groups of supports that may be targeted by support determinations under section 34A; and the provisions that may be subject to automation under proposed section 59C.

Parliament is being asked to approve broad legislative powers before knowing how they will be applied in practice. This significantly limits Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise the practical impact of reforms before the legislation is passed. It also means that the disability community, providers and participants will be left without certainty about the rules that will govern their lives until those instruments are made — which may be long after the legislation commences.

Requested Changes

I ask the Committee to consider:

  • increasing transparency regarding the content, timing and consultation processes for future NDIS Rules and legislative instruments;
  • including more substantive safeguards directly within the primary legislation, rather than leaving them to be developed through delegated instruments; and
  • ensuring that all delegated legislation made under the Bill remains subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.

Key Concern 7 — Automation and Administrative Decision-Making

Why It Matters

Schedule 3, Part 2 of the Bill inserts proposed section 59B, which authorises the CEO of the NDIA to arrange for the use of computer programs to take administrative action — including discretionary decisions and evaluative judgements — under provisions designated by the Minister.

While administrative efficiency is a legitimate objective, the expansion of automated decision-making in the context of NDIS planning raises significant concerns. NDIS decisions can profoundly affect a participant’s safety, housing stability, mental health, access to supports and daily functioning. These decisions often involve complex, individual and contextual factors that do not translate well to standardised computational processes.

Participants with communication barriers, cognitive impairments, psychosocial disability, neurological disability or limited capacity to navigate complex administrative systems may be particularly disadvantaged by highly automated processes. As NDIS Dr Georgia van Toorn has noted, where computational systems are used to support decision-making, they must be carefully designed to accommodate individual circumstances — and if algorithms are going to determine who gets support and who goes without, the entire apparatus must be open to scrutiny.

The provisions in proposed section 59B permit automation of evaluative judgements and discretionary decisions. While proposed section 59D provides for some oversight requirements and a right to request personal review of automated decisions, the adequacy of those safeguards will depend heavily on the rules and instruments made under the Bill — which are not yet available for scrutiny.

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 provision that could disproportionately affect older participants with cognitive or communication impairments who may struggle to maintain contact with the Agency.

The aged care system was not designed to meet complex, disability-specific support needs. It is already under significant pressure, with lengthy assessment delays and a service model built around age-related needs rather than the individualised, disability-specific funding that NDIS participants rely on. For individuals whose disabilities were formally recognised and funded under the NDIS prior to turning 65, removal from the Scheme may represent a severe and irreversible reduction in the quality, specificity and continuity of their support.

The Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges that NDIS participants are able to access more funding through the NDIS than through the aged care system when they turn 65. Yet despite this acknowledged disparity, this cohort does not appear to have been meaningfully considered in the reform design. I cannot find any evidence that Foundational Supports would be available to participants following removal from the Scheme in these circumstances, nor would they automatically qualify for aged care supports.

This may lead to a person effectively having no supports at all, and place them at great risk, or require hospitalisation in the interim and place further burden on the health systems.

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, for families, and for the communities that benefit from a well-functioning scheme. I do not dispute that reform is necessary.

However, sustainability should not come at the expense of fairness, accessibility, participant safety, or the fundamental rights of people with disability. The measures in this Bill, as currently drafted, risk producing serious and unintended harms for participants with the most complex support needs, the least capacity to navigate administrative challenges, and the greatest dependence on the Scheme.

I respectfully ask the Committee to ensure these reforms are carefully scrutinised, supported by strong safeguards, and developed in genuine partnership with the disability community.

In considering these reforms, I ask the Committee to closely consider whether the proposed framework remains consistent with the objects and principles of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), including:

  • section 3(1)(c), which provides that people with disability should be supported to participate in and contribute to social and economic life to the extent of their ability;
  • section 4(1), which recognises that people with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to determine their own best interests, including the right to exercise choice and control;
  • section 4(11), which recognises the role of families, carers and other significant persons, while not implying that informal supports should replace reasonable and necessary funded supports — noting that many participants do not have any informal supports;
  • section 4(13), which recognises that people with disability should be supported to participate in and contribute to social and civic life; and
  • section 17A, as amended by the Bill, which incorporates principles relating to participation, planning and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make this submission, and for the time it has taken to consider the experiences and concerns of participants like me.