National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
To:- Community Affairs Legislation Committee
A submission to the inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Our lived experience of caring for our youngest child, an NDIS participant, are our qualifications for writing this submission. We are writing this submission because our child has an intellectual disability and does not have the capacity to advocate or represent themselves.
Every day, until the day we die, we wonder who and how our child will be cared for, will they be safe and happy after we are gone. These proposed NDIS amendments heighten our fears that the future for them is not good. Even writing this submission has been difficult.
We oppose the proposed amendments to the NDIS that reduce the reasonable and necessary supports that participants require and other changes which shred the original philosophy, objects and principles of the NDIS. Disabled people are being used as a soft target for budget reforms, without any understanding of the impact on the daily lives of people with a disability and their carers.
Our child commenced participation in the NDIS in 2014 as a nine-year-old.
Prior to 2014, we were self-funded, where required, for early interventions and supports, utilising charities and limited state government support where we could. Due to the heavy load of specialist appointments, consultations, therapy, and the care of a special needs infant, we were on a single income. Prior to the NDIS, our costs associated with early intervention and supports for our child were unsustainable. Now cuts to funding are proposed to the NDIS which will affect our special needs child and reverberate through all of our family.
Our adult child’s disabilities do not fit into an easy NDIA classification pigeonhole because of the breadth, complexity, and interaction between these “permanent impairments”. As a result, we have had to constantly justify our child’s needs and scrap for funding at every plan review.
Our 12 years of dealing with the NDIS and NDIA have been extremely difficult and stressful to the extent of affecting our health. These proposed changes will intensify this battle and amplify our stress.
Our role as carers for our child is unrelenting, we accept that, but we also ask for some understanding of this, rather than having our role reduced to a legalistic proposed clause in the Schedule 1 Part 6 73 of the amendments – 34 (1G), (1H), & (1J) under “Family etc. support – children.” We write this submission in our limited free time with a limited submission period of two weeks, whilst the government has teams of lawyers, analysts, and market researchers working through the proposals for months, with a cold understanding of “Family etc.”
We value, need, and appreciate the NDIS, we want and support a sustainable NDIS, free from rorts and fraud, but we don’t want to go back to where we were before the NDIS, to a system of inadequate funding and inadequate support services.
We spend our NDIS funding very carefully and ensure we get value for money – we treat our NDIS funding as if it were our own money because we know it is a privilege to receive this funding and it must be used appropriately.
Over the last 18 – 24 months there has been a sustained campaign of negative media with no balanced discussion regarding the NDIS. A minimal number of stories on the positive outcomes for disabled people and the positive changes to their lives as a result of the NDIS. No economic
Page 1 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
discussion on the positive impacts of increased taxes from people working in the NDIS as supports, the increased employment, the increased skills base, the injection of money into the economy because disabled people can get out of the home, the ability of some participants and carers to enter or return to the workforce.
The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 section on Consultation, details in the first paragraph that “The NDIS Review engaged closely and extensively with people with disability, their families, carers, providers and workers.” This Consultation section also quotes large numbers of consultations, phone interviews and of receiving thousands of on-line submissions. If there was so much consultation with those affected, why has there been so much anger, anxiety, furious advocacy and concern surrounding this Bill since it was introduced to Parliament on 14/04/26, a short two weeks ago.
It is incredibly disappointing and sad that the present Government, who originally championed the NDIS, has provided a very short period of comment on the proposed NDIS amendments, given the length of the document and the accompanying explanatory notes, the ramifications of changes to the NDIS Act, and the large number of people affected, some of the most vulnerable in the country.
It is unfortunate that many politicians outside of the current government also do not understand disability and not are concerned about the future of disabled people, and some will use opposition to this Bill as leverage on other issues or positions that they want addressed, rather than addressing matters affecting the lives of disabled people.
Where do disabled people now go for support when both major political parties see disabled people as a financial problem, not a human problem, which is to be solved in the easiest manner by reducing services to the most vulnerable through the proposed amendments that fly in the face of the original NDIS Act Objects and Principles.
There must be another way to undertake budget reform without taking money and access to supports from the most vulnerable in society.
YES - increase and tighten NDIS governance.
YES - improve NDIS administration efficiency.
YES - increase auditing and penalties for fraud.
YES - monitor pricing to prevent gouging.
DO NOT reduce disabled people or their interactions with the NDIS to a financial transaction or a commodity.
DO NOT reduce the value of the lives of disabled people by taking supports and funding from them and reduce their lives to simple dollars that can be taken easily from them as “low hanging fruit” for budget reform.
The comments below directly address our concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, to the extent our limited time has allowed to try and understand all of the documentation.
30/05/26
Page 2 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 1—Defining functional capacity
Amendment 4 After Section 9A - Insert: 9B Definition of functional capacity
Comment
We disagree with (1) (b), the exclusion of environmental and personal circumstances when assessing a person’s functional capacity. The Bill’s explanatory memorandum does not reference the technical basis for how this conclusion was made – was it as a result of a recommendation from health professionals, or allied health professionals such as audiologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, or speech pathologists. This approach devalues and persons individual circumstances, and concerningly this is confirmed in the Explanatory Memorandum, stating “The requirement to assess functional capacity excluding the environmental and personal circumstances, as much as possible, intends to confine the assessment to the person’s intrinsic ability to undertake an activity. This approach avoids reliance on personal and external factors that may vary between individuals and are not attributable to the impairment, such as financial means or living arrangements.”
This amendment needs to be reviewed by disability professionals who place the disabled person first, and not from a purely legal and economic basis.
Subsection 9B (2) & (3) read that the rules and thresholds for “functional capacity” can be determined and prescribed by the NDIS – i.e. make up any of the rules as applied to function capacity. This is an overstep of power and should not be allowed without some review, comments and control processes in place.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 3—Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support
Item 30 Subsection 32L (6) (note 2) - Repeal the note
Comment – This simple phrase “repeal the note” is easy to overlook, but again this is the same as comment immediately above, as removal of (note 2) appears to remove the impact of environmental factors or the impact of another impairment that may not meet the requirements for support needs but contributes to the persons overall disability requirements for support.
The overall theme of the proposed amendments is that disabilities can be neatly compartmentalised, and for a person with more than one impairment, these impairments do not affect each other. In reality nothing could be further from the truth. A person with a disability needs to be viewed wholistically , not as a set of individual impairments that act upon the person separately. The complexities of a person with multiple impairments cannot be overstated, and unfortunately the NDIS has a lot of difficulty in understanding this even now.
Note (2) of 32L should not be repealed.
Page 3 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 3—Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support
item 31 Paragraph 34(1)(aa) - Omit “arising from an impairment”, insert “arising directly from an impairment or impairments”.
Comment – What does this mean, how will it be actioned in practice, especially for people with multiple impairments that need to be considered in how they interact and affect the whole person, not assessing each impairment individually as a separate impairment.
A deaf or hard of hearing child with additional “impairments” such as an intellectual disability that may limit their attention span, and/or a physical disability such as hypotonia which may limit their ability to sit and receive speech therapy for usual delivery periods, will need more time for speech therapy compared to a neurotypical deaf or hard of hearing child with no other additional needs.
As with the previous comment above for note (2) of 32L, this is compartmentalising of each impairment, by using the word “directly” is not possible for an accurate assessment of supports for an individual with multiple impairments. The lawyers have written this, and it does not reflect reality or respect people as unique individuals.
The change in wording to paragraph 34(1aa) should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 3—Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support
Item 32 Subsection 34(1) (note) – repeal the note and replace wording.
Comment – Same issues as for the comment for Amendments 30 and 31 above, where the proposed amendment removes environmental factors and the impact of other impairments.
The proposed amendment to repeal existing wording and replace with a change in wording to paragraph 34(1aa) should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 4—Support determinations
Item 34 After section 34 – insert 34A Determination reducing funding for groups of supports.
Comment - Too much power is given to the Minister with no details on consultation processes or systems of checks and balances on the justification or the reasoning why a particular group is singled out.
Under this change the “reasonable and necessary” supports that a participant has been determined to NEED may cost more than the funding. Options then are to:- o Cut the supports, – discrimination based on economic circumstances, loss of support for the participant. o Self-fund (top-up) to keep the level of supports going – only some participants will be able to do this.
This proposed amendment should not be implemented.
Page 4 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 5—Plan renewal - “by force of section 50A” - The Amendments are using this phrase:-
Item 38 Subsection 32A(2)
Item 41 Subsection 37(1)
Item 42 Paragraph 37(3)(a)
Comment – The use of such a phrase as “by force” is concerning and lacks any consultation with the participant. Sweeping powers affecting individuals and further powers given to the minister which do not appear to have any processes for review, comment or controls.
This change in process lacks any input from the participants affected. Has this proposed change been discussed with advocacy groups on the practicalities of the proposed change?
Until some review of the proposed changes is undertaken with advocacy groups, it should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 5—Plan renewal
Item 45 At the end of section 38 – add an undefined timeframe (as soon as practicable) when advising participants of a plan renewed by force, which may also have lower funding.
Comment – A plan renewed “by force” could have a funding component reduced by a determination under 34A, however the participant may not be notified of this change as there is no obligation to provide a copy within a certain timeframe other than “as soon as practicable”. The participant may be spending money on supports when the money has been reduced or removed without knowing this.
These proposed amendments can renew a plan by force but cannot advise a participant within a realistic and fair business-like timeframe fair timeframe that this has happened.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 60 Paragraph 3(1)(d) – adding “financial sustainability” as part of new text to the Objects of Act, repealing the current text.
Comment – The Amendments contained in the Bill are fully focussed on the financial sustainability rather than the welfare of the participants. Yes, the NDIS MUST be sustainable but there is no balance. The participants have been targeted as the easiest prey and the “low- hanging -fruit” in the chase to reduce NDIS costs.
The Explanatory Memorandum for Item 60 reinforces the view that the NDIS will no longer consider an individual, but any number of participants using a particular type of funding who can have this funding lowered at the will of the Minister with no thought on how the funding reductions to a group of supports will affect each person.
There have been no effective, sustained and large-scale successful efforts to control costs in the areas of fraud, mismanagement, overpricing, and general poor efficiency or through auditing
Page 5 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
processes. These proposed changes are being undertaken while there has been a previous lack safeguards, governance and auditing on service providers and suppliers.
Rorts and fraud have not been addressed by any previous governments, nor have effective auditing and controls of systems and processes been implemented to provide a sustainable scheme. The failure of the management of the system is now being attributed to the participants, not those that manage or audit and control the providers and overview efficiencies and governance of the scheme.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 61 Subsections 4(5) and (11) - Remove the term “reasonable and necessary” and replace this phrase with “NDIS”.
Comment – By removing the key term “reasonable and necessary” and replacing with “NDIS” the proposed amendments are watering down a core tenet of the origin NDIS legislation and philosophy of the requirements to be fair in supporting the needs of a participant. Now it will be whatever the NDIS doles out to a participant, most likely less than what is reasonable and necessary to appropriately and adequately support a participant.
The term “reasonable and necessary” must be retained a principle of the NDIS Act. The attempt to remove this is a legal position that government lawyers want removed to assist them when challenged by participants who have been denied what they have been assessed as required to receive for supports.
This proposed amendment should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 62 Section 17A repeal the heading “Principles relating to the participation of people with disability”, replace with “Principles relating to participation and plans.”
Comment – This is a strange modification to a heading which can only be for some legal purpose, potentially to limit interpretation to only people who are disabled enough to meet the rules to qualify as a participant. The explanation provided in the Explanatory Memorandum is vague at best.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 63 Subsection 17A (3) - at the end of 17A(3), add (d), (e) & (f) which adds details regarding the role of the family and carers and other relationships of the participant.
Comment – The Explanatory memorandum details that “This reflects the move away from having principles that only apply to plans.”, which is confusing as Item 63 adds text that already exists as within Section 31(C) & (CA) under “Principles relating to plans.”
Page 6 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 68 - After subsection 33(2E) – insert new subsections (2EA) & 2EB) which places limits on the amount of funding of supports or a class of supports, the intensity of supports, and ratios of workers to participants.
Comment – As an example, a speedy pathway to early intervention is required for children when first diagnosed with hearing loss. Even short delays at this period in an infant’s life in accessing specialised paediatric audiological and speech support will have lifelong effect for speech and speech cognition if is not provided immediately after diagnosis. This is likely the case for other disabilities when first diagnosed as an infant.
The Explanatory Memorandum for Item 68 states “Maximum amounts would refer to the maximum funding amount for a support or group of supports that could be included in a participant’s plan, regardless of any other considerations.” It is concerning that a participant with multiple or complex impairments may need more hours or more intensity of supports, due to this complexity but is denied, because the maximum is the maximum “regardless of any other considerations”. From personal experience of caring for someone with multiple and complex impairments, this is not reality. If someone has hearing loss, intellectual disability and hypotonia, they cannot attend a speech therapy session like a person with only hearing loss due to lower attention span, slower uptake of the information, and lower ability to physically participate in a session. They cannot be grouped into a “class of participants” and potentially the generalised hearing loss class of supports would not be sufficient to provide the level of support required.
The proposed new subsections do not appear to allow individual considerations to be considered, but group and generalise supports and bundle people into a “class of participants” – a horrible term.
This proposed amendment should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 73 – after subsection 34(1) – insert “Value for money considerations” heading and Subsections 34(1A) to (1F).
Comment - How will the considerations of comparable supports and better value for money be transparent so that the participant is assured the best decisions have been made and all factors have been considered?
Who will be providing the technical input to the NDIA for assessing the research and evidence of the effectiveness of a support?
If the proposed participant supports are rejected by the CEO as not being supported by research and evidence, or the participants circumstances, will the full reasons be reported to the participant so the process is transparent, and can this be challenged?
“Value for money” should always be sought, and the term “reasonable” was previously part of that consideration, however there is a risk that lower cost supports delivery as required, leading to wasted money and potentially undesirable outcomes for the participant that may be long- term.
Page 7 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 6—Reasonable and necessary supports
Item 73 – AFTER SUBSECTION 34(1) – insert “Family etc. support – children” heading and subsections 34(1G) to (1J) and heading “Family etc. support – other matters” and subsection 34(1K).
Comment – Item 73 appears to want to further define the existing subsection 34 (1)(e) “the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;”
It is unfortunate that the huge amount of additional work and sacrifice by parents and carers of time, money, financial future (superannuation), career, physical and mental health, and care of other family members, such as siblings of the participant, older parents, is not appreciated and so under-estimated and valued. Perhaps this should be recognised in the amendments for the NDIS, rather than being legally defining the NDIS’s expectations of parents and carers in proposed amendments to the legislation as Item 73.
The stress on a parent/carer and the rest of the immediate family of a participant is immense and not recognised by the NDIS, and the proposed cuts add to this strain. Any advocacy, or system understanding, or legislative education and familiarly, or representations to NDIA or politicians, is all done after-hours between caring for the participant, other family members, and work commitments. Meanwhile all personnel you are dealing with from which ever from support providers to government or NDIA or their representatives, like national law firms, have full-time highly paid personnel working during normal work hours with teams of support.
As participants, and parents and carers of participants, we have no privacy – everyone knows all of our most personal details and sits and assesses us.
Our lives are so different to most, and regardless of NDIS funding, that does not change.
The proposed inclusion of what is effectively a definition of “good parenting”, or “Family etc. support – children” is offensive.
What does “etc” even mean or refer to in the proposed title – perhaps showering and dressing your adult child for all of your remaining life?
This proposed amendment should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 8—Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated.
Items 88, 89, 91 and 92 - These amendments are associated with “appropriate treatment”.
Comment – In relation to these amendments and the definition and use of the term “appropriate treatment” in relation to whether or not an impairment or impairments are not permanent or likely to be permanent: -
• The requirement for a person to have “…undertaken all appropriate treatment for the impairment or impairments..” and
Page 8 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
• The proposed 25A (2) subsection “Treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.”
These amendments are very problematic in that the legislation is potentially forcing people to undertake treatments that may not be in the best interests of a person when the particular impairment is viewed in isolation for that person, otherwise they will lose supports required because the treatment was not undertaken. These amendments seem to be written without considering people as humans and as unique individuals.
Some possible examples:-
-
A deaf or hard of hearing person with severe to profound hearing impairment for cultural or other personal reasons may not want to wear hearing aids or have a cochlear implant for speech and may wish to communicate only in Auslan. If this person requests funding to learn Auslan, or interpreting, or captioning, will this person be denied NDIS supports and funding because they have not “undertaken all appropriate treatment.”
-
A person with severe scoliosis that reduces their functional capacity and affects their social interaction, mobility, self-care and self-management does not wish to undertake medical treatment such as spinal fusion and the insertion Harrington rods because there is a real risk of death, paraplegia, ongoing pain and loss of flexibility. Will this person be denied NDIS supports and funding because they have not “undertaken all appropriate treatment.”
Proposed section 25A defining “appropriate treatment” includes the 25A(2) “Treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. Note: A person’s individual circumstances include the person’s financial circumstances and geographical location.” 25A(2) discriminates people with different financial circumstances or living in regional or remote areas. This is not acceptable.
These proposed amendments should not be implemented.
Schedule 1—Access and planning measures
Part 9 – Eligibility based on access to other services
Item 97 before section 26 – inserting section 25B - Alternative support requirements.
Comment
What oversight, controls, review or challenge process will be in place to check that it is appropriate when “(4) An impairment is an excluded impairment if a support is declared by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules to be an alternative support for the impairment for the purposes of this subsection.”
What evidence or processes will be disclosed when, for subsection (5), the NDIS rules “…that a support is an alternative support by reference to the system of service delivery, or support service, through which the support is offered.”
Will there be transparency for the reasons on the decision by the Minister as per Subsection (6) “…the Minister must be satisfied that it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme.”
Page 9 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
Schedule 3 – Governance arrangements
Part 2 – Automation of administrative action
Items 10 & 11 insert and add text related to the use of “…computer programs to take administrative action that may or must be taken by the CEO under a provision..” and insertion of section 59B – automation of administrative action.
Comment
The use of computer programs (assume this is artificial intelligence) for the automation of administrative actions is concerning as there does not appear to be any details on how the use and outcomes will be: -
• Tested for accuracy and completeness. The reporting of any incidents, after the event and up to 12 months old in the NDIA annual report as per proposed section 59E(7)(b), could be written and reported in a way that minimises the effects on real people of administrative actions implemented by a computer program that were not correct or preferable. Is this computer program use the next Robodebt scandal?
• Transparent in the way the computer programs are monitored for consistency, regardless of section 59D (2), (3) and (4).
• Able to meet the requirements of each unique individual human participant.
• Able to be challenged by participants who disagree with an outcome through an administrative review process involving humans.
• Managed to ensure participant confidentiality.
For proposed Section 59E “Oversight and safeguards for automation of administrative action”:-
• Subsection (3) seems like a massive “sorry we got it wrong but bad luck anyway” clause.
• Subsection (4) and (5) message seems to be if “computer says no” and administrative action is taken but NDIS fail to tell a participant, the action is still implemented and valid.
Schedule 4—New framework planning
Item 4 - Before subsection 32K(4) - Inserting subsection (3B)
Comment – The insertion of this subsection which specifies sorting participants in groups or classes, specifying one or more funding amounts for specified levels of need (3B)(a), (b), (c), & (d), and likely formalising what is already in practice within the NDIA. The risk of this approach is losing the ability of the NDIS to meet the needs of individuals who are each unique. It is recognised that with so many participants that the administration of the NDIS is a huge task, however the original philosophy expressed in “3 Objects of Act” and “4 General principles guiding action under this Act” are slowly and piece by piece being abandoned.
(3C) means that funding amount may be “… less than the actual cost of providing or acquiring the support or group or class of supports.”, thereby disadvantaging people that require the recommended reasonable and necessary supports but cannot afford to pay to receive this if the NDIS funding is insufficient.
Page 10 of 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2304
(3D) means that some funding is likely to be insufficient because the NDIS rules, as per… “may specify a maximum amount of funding for a support or a group or class of supports.” Again, disadvantaging people that require the recommended reasonable and necessary supports, but the NDIS funding is insufficient.
This proposed amendment should not be implemented.
Page 11 of 11