Submission 2487
NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Senate Submission
Access and Eligibility
Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real My experience / what I want the
Functional capacity becomes a key eligibility test (s9B).
A standardised assessment may not accurately capture fluctuating disability, masking, trauma, autism, fatigue, behaviour support needs or the cumulative impact of multiple disabilities.
A child may appear capable during a short assessment but require significant support to function safely every day. The assessment tool has not yet been released and it is unclear who will administer it. Instead of clinical information from qualified allied health professionals who know the participant, access decisions may rely more heavily on a standardised assessment which may involve automation.
There are also concerns regarding the availability of information, who will be authorised to complete the assessments and how consistency will be maintained.
Evidence will be required around the ‘Permanence’ of a person’s disability.
Families may need to demonstrate that all reasonable treatment options have been attempted before accessing supports. This may disadvantage people where treatments are unavailable, unaffordable, unsafe, ineffective, culturally inappropriate or create significant side effects. To gain access, participants may have to undergo ‘treatment’ including surgeries, medication and therapies that may be harmful. It also raises difficult questions about where the line sits.
Submission 2487
between an “appropriate” Access to treatment and intervention treatment and a treatment a services is not always accessible to person does not wish to participants who are restricted to undertake. gaining access to support services without assistance and could include, Could a participant be required but is not limited to location, service to trial certain medications waitlists, financial impact, before accessing certain transportation barriers, and the supports? Could a family be availability of specialised/required expected to pursue surgery, providers. This could result in a intensive therapy or another participant’s inability to access a intervention they believe is treatment or intervention in a timely unsuitable, ineffective or carries or time required manner. unacceptable risks? It has not been transparently provided Where people have a rare to participants what will be expected condition or diagnosis, many to provide evidence that all experts don’t know what appropriate treatment options have treatment will be beneficial or been exhausted. Eligibility criteria effective. should recognise that access to Because the NDIA can no services varies significantly and that longer take into account a barriers to treatment may exist person’s environment (i.e. independently of a person’s disability. financial status) this may mean that if they cannot afford a specific treatment (to prove that it is not effective), they cannot access the NDIS. New eligibility People already receiving the framework from 2028 NDIS may need to demonstrate (s9B and related they continue to meet the new provisions) eligibility criteria. Existing and All current participants future participants face will need to be uncertainty about whether they reassessed under the will qualify under the new new functional access model, particularly capacity eligibility where support needs are framework from developmental, psychosocial, January 2028. fluctuating or difficult to Some may lose their measure using standardised access in this process. tools. Families are concerned children and young people who currently receive support could lose access despite no improvement in their disability or functional capacity. We don’t know what assessment tool will be used for this eligibility process, what evidence participants can provide and if there are any appeal rights. There doesn’t appear to be any other Foundational Supports in
Submission 2487
place for those who are exited from the NDS.
Functional capacity This bill seeks to assess a person’s functional capacity without taking into account evironmental factors such as their financial circumstances, their home environment or the assistive technology they use. (s9B)
Two children with the same diagnosis can have vastly different support needs depending on poverty, housing, transport, family supports, family violence, culture, geography and access to services. Ignoring context risks underestimating need.
Functional capacity Some people have good days and bad days. Others can temporarily mask difficulties during assessments. Families are concerned assessments may capture what a person can do briefly rather than what they can safely and consistently sustain in daily life. (s9B)
One day snapshots do not take into account the cumulative effect of disability and carer roles.
To be funded, support Families may be forced to prove needs must arise exactly which impairment ‘directly’ from an causes which support need. NDIS-eligible Supports that arise from the impairment combined effect of multiple dsabilities, medical conditions or life circumstances may become harder to justify.
In reality, disability is rarely that neat.
A child may have autism, intellectual disability, ADHD, eyeptics and anxiety. Is the need for supervision caused by the autism? The epilepsy? The intellectual disability? The anxiety? An unrelated early childhood trauma? Or the interaction between all of them?
A child with a rare genetic
Submission 2487
condition may experience a unique combination of physical, cognitive, behavioural and medical symptoms that do not fit neatly into diagnostic categories. The support need exists regardless, but determining exactly which diagnosis the support need directly arises from may be next to impossible.
The question for families is whether support decisions should be based on the existence of a genuine support need, or on the ability to successfully attribute that need to a particular eligible diagnosis or impairment.
This creates a burden of evidence to prove a direct link between every support need and the disability / impairment.
Stronger focus on This section states that people moving people to should not be eligible to access alternative funding the NDIS if there are other systems. compensation or insurance schemes that could support them instead. This may include the TAC, workplace compensation schemes and potentially even the Aged Care System.
Stronger evidence will Families may need to de required around the demonstrate that all reasonable treatment options have been attempted before accessing supports. This may disadvantage people where treatments are unavailable, unaffordable, ineffective, culturally inappropriate or create significant side effects. To gain access, participants may have to undergo ‘treatment’ including surgeries, medication and therapies that may be harmful. It also raises difficult questions about where the line sits between an “appropriate”
Submission 2487
Treatment and a treatment a person does not wish to undertake.
Could a participant be required to trial certain medications before accessing certain supports? Could a family be expected to pursue surgery, intensive therapy or another intervention they believe is unsuitable, ineffective or carries unacceptable risks?
Where people have a rare condition or diagnosis, many experts don’t know what treatment will be beneficial or effective. People may lose NDIS supports before alternative systems are fully established. Families are concerned participants could be found ineligible for the NDIS or have supports reduced before replacement systems are available, accessible, adequately funded and capable of meeting need. There is no consensus on what Foundational Supports are yet and how they will be rolled out or available. We cannot cut supports and then design the systems later.
Planning and Funding
| Proposed change (Bill section) | What this could mean in real life | My experience/what I want/the Senate to know |
|---|---|---|
| The Minister can make support determinations (decisions) which allow broad reductions to support categories (s34A) | Funding for an entire category of support could potentially be reduced for large groups of participants without individual assessment of need. This would not occur on a ‘plan by plan’ basis. Families may lose supports that are currently working well simply because they fall within a targeted category. | Not individualized. Right now, the Government is proposing a 50% cut to social, civic, and community participation funding, and a 10 % cut to some capacity building daily activity funding. This would start from 1 October 2026 as new plan reassessments are completed. But this could be applied at up to 99% to any support |
Submission 2487
category in an NDIS plan.
The only limit around these cuts is that the Minister needs to ‘have regard’ for the safety of participants.
Minister may impose support Funding limits or caps can be placed on support categories or cohorts of participants (s33(2EA)) and may be based on category averages rather than individual circumstances. This would allow the Minister to set an upper limit for a particular support. For example, people with Intellectual Disability cannot receive more than 12 hours of psychology funding per year, or children under 9 years of age can only receive up to 3 hours of allied health support per week.
Families caring for children with complex disability may be unable to access support levels that genuinely reflect their needs. Move toward more standardised Plans may increasingly reflect what the NDIS planning and assessment-driven funding model or assessment tool / report budgets generates rather than what is actually required for safety, participation and family sustainability. We still don’t know how the Functional Capacity Assessment In The New Planning Framework will be administered and how that report will translate into a Participant Statement Of Supports. Less individualized support provision. Changes To The Reasonable And The threshold for what counts as “reasonable Necessary Criteria. and necessary” is being rewritten. The Bill changes the tests The Bill increases the amount of support the NDIA Can Expect Families, Carers And informal supports to provide before funding supports. For Children, Greater Emphasis Is placed on parental responsibility, including supervision, personal care, emotional support, t transport and behavioural support. Supports may Be Harder To Fund Where They Primarily reduce parental workload, improve household efficiency Or Replace Care The NDIA Believes families should provide. There Will Be A Hierarchy Of Evidence, Giving Greater Weight To Published And Peer-Reviewed research Than A participant’s Personal experience With A Support. Where Research evidence Is Limited, The Ndia May Still Decide Not To fund A Support, Even If The Participant reports That It Is Beneficial. Repeal Of Section 31 – section 31 currently contains principles principles relating to plans recognising participants As Individuals with (Schedule 1, Item 66) unique goals, aspirations and support needs. The bill repeals most of these principles.
Submission 2487
While government states relevant principles are being relocated elsewhere, many advocates believe important protections supporting genuinely individualised planning have been weakened or lost. These principals help the NDIA and the courts to understand how to implement and protect the intention of the scheme.
Proposed reduction of social Supports used for community access, social
and community participation connection, volunteering, recreation, skill
determinations (s34A). development and participation may be
substantially reduced. Families are concerned
children and adults could become more
isolated, segregated and disconnected from
community life.
The creates a reduction of supports that prevent isolation
isolation and maintain community inclusion Supports that appear ‘non-essential’ on paper
may actually be what allows a person to
maintain friendships, participate in
community activities, learn life skills, develop
independence and avoid social isolation.
Right now the Government is proposing a 50
% cut to social, civic, and community
participation funding, and a 10 % cut to some
capacity building daily activity funding. This
would start from 1 October 2026 as new plan
reassessments are completed.
Right now, we don’t know if this will apply to
Core: Social and Community Participation,
and Capacity Building: Increased Social and
Community Participation.
Children and young people may become more
reliant on parents and carers for transport,
community access, social activities,
extended employment preparation and daily
participation.
Greater emphasis on lower-cost Previous planning criteria required alternatives when funding consideration of whether a lower-cost option supports would achieve the same or substantially similar outcome. This bill changes the terminology so that when planners are considering cheaper alternatives, they no longer need to consider whether those alternatives would deliver the same or similar outcomes. Therefore, the cost of the support becomes the major determining factor rather than if they are effective or not. For example, a cheaper support worker arrangement, therapy approach or piece of equipment may be available, but it may not deliver the same level of independence, safety or participation. Families may wish to explain the risks that exist where a cheaper support that is less effective is funded.
Submission 2487
Disproportionate impact on Government modelling suggests some certain disability cohorts disability groups may lose a larger proportion of their current supports because a greater share of their plans is allocated to social and community participation. Will this affect children more than adults? Right now children may have funding for ‘Social and Community Participation’ where that funding is actually provided so that a parent can take them to the supermarket or to doctor’s appointment. Those outings are not focused around social and community participation and should not be subject to funding reductions simply because they occur outside the home. When it comes to children and young people, how does the Agency intend to distinguish between Assistance with Daily Life and Social and Community Participation? What will the gender impact be in situations where women disproportionately absorb unpaid caring burden? Support caps and funding Families are concerned that funding restrictions may push restrictions could make individualised participants into more group- supports harder to access and increase based support arrangements pressure toward shared or group-based service models which don’t meet the participants needs and therefore are less effective or less safe. These may also increase the need for Restrictive Practices. Claims must be made within 90 Self-managing families and small providers days (currently 2 years). may lose funding or payment because Commencing 1st December paperwork was delayed during illness, crisis, 2026. hospitalisation or caring responsibilities. Unspent funds removed at plan Many NDIS plans are currently being renewal (s50A) ‘continued’ or extended. In the future, even when a plan is rolled over or not reassessed (because the participant is considered to have ‘stable support needs’) their plan will be ‘renewed’ meaning they will receive the same NDIS plan again with a new start date. Unused funding will no longer be carried over into the new plan which will contain the same supports and budget (less any one-off items like Assistive Technology). That ‘renewed’ plan is not a reviewable decision because no new decision has been made. Therefore, the application for an S100 or Internal Review of a new NDIS plan will become more important. How will this affect families who have fluctuating needs?
Submission 2487
Reviews, Appeals and Participant Rights
Restrictions on reassessments
(s48A) Families may struggle to access timely plan changes when circumstances deteriorate, informal supports collapse, equipment fails or a child’s needs increase unexpectedly. When almost all NDIS plans are continued or rolled over, how does a participant request a plan reassessment if they haven’t had one for many years? For adults who have stable needs this is more reasonable, however children may require plan reassessments simply because they have grown older and the level of typical parental responsibility for their age may have changed. We would expect the core budget for a 6-year-old child to be very different to a 12-year-old child or a 16- year-old child.
Future support needs assessments
Government has indicated future support needs assessments may be reviewable, but tribunals may have reduced ability to substitute their own assessment. Right now, the Tribunal can review funded supports on a line-by-line basis. In the future, a Support Needs Assessment may generate a report via an algorithm that states what supports should be funded (called the Participant Statement of Supports). However, the Participant Statement of Supports cannot be appealed, The Tribunal can simply direct the Agency to complete another Support Needs Assessment, which will then generate another report resulting in another Participant Statement of Supports.
Only the participant, plan nominee
or child representative will be able to request reassessment (as opposed to your plan manager or support coordinator).
Timeframe for the NDIA to decide
whether to complete a plan reassessment will extend from 21 days to 90 days.
Compliance, Administration and Safeguards
Proposed change (Bill
What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want
Submission 2487
Plan suspension and revocation for non-contact (s40A / s30(1A))
If the NDIA requests information related to planning and a participant does not respond, the Agency could suspend their plan. If there is still no contact after 90 days, participant status could potentially be revoked. Families may wish to consider what could happen if letters are missed, contact details are outdated, English is not a first language, or a participant is experiencing illness, hospitalisation, homelessness, family violence or another crisis.
Expansion of mandatory provider registration
Participants may lose access to trusted workers or experience workforce shortages, particularly in regional areas. People who directly employ their support workers (Service for One) may not be able to continue working with their trusted supports. A sole trader or contractor may be considered a ‘provider’ and need to undergo NDIS Registration to be able to continue to provide support – this may be a costly and difficult process. What would happen if you were forced to use only NDIS registered providers? There will be a focus on mandatory registration for providers delivering “high risk supports”. For participants who are children, parents are often heavily involved in recruiting, training,supervising and monitoring support workers. Families may wish to consider whether mandatory registration provides additional safeguards or simply reduces the pool of available providers. We also don’t have a clear definition of ‘High Risk Supports’ yet.
Increased record-keeping obligations and debt recovery powers
Families may face financial penalties if records are incomplete, misunderstood or lost during periods of stress, illness or crisis.
Stronger NDIA compliance and enforcement powers
The NDIA would gain stronger powers to investigate how NDIS funding is being used,request information and documents, and issue fines where it believes NDIS rules have been broken. Families may wish to consider what protections exist if an honest mistake is made and how easy it would be to challenge a decision.
Expanded NDIA information gathering powers
The Agency can require participants, nominees,providers and others to provide documents, answer questions or attend a meeting with theAgency within 14 days’ notice. Failure to complymay result in legal consequences. Families maywish to consider whether appropriate safeguardsexist and whether people will understand theirrights and obligations when responding to these requests.
Automation of
Submission 2487
The NDIA could use computer systems to carry out some administrative tasks and decisions that are currently performed by staff.
also create risks where errors occur, particularly for participants with complex circumstances or where incorrect data is on file with the Agency.
Some decisions currently made by humans would be made by an algorithm or automated process. These decisions would still have the current appeal rights.
We don’t know what kinds of tasks, decisions and actions would be automated.
Humans make mistakes. Computers make mistakes too. The difference is scale. If a delegate makes a flawed decision, one participant may be affected. If an algorithms gets it wrong, thousands of participants could receive the same incorrect outcome before anyone realises there’s a problem.
Children and Young People
Proposed change (Bill section) What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know
Children increasingly directed toward Foundational Supports / Thriving Kids pathways Families may be redirected away from NDIS supports into systems that are not yet fully established. Increased reliance on parental responsibility arguments. There is a change to the Reasonable and Necessary criteria stating the NDIA must remember parents are responsible for providing a substantial amount of support for their children. The NDIS cannot fund support that reduce the carer burden on parents below what is typical for children of the same age. This takes into account transport, personal care, emotional support, behaviour support and supervision. The NDIA must look at whether funding support like support workers would expose the participant or someone else to risk of harm Families may be expected to absorb additional caring responsibilities regardless of work commitments, health, finances or sustainability. The NDIA would also be prevented from funding supports simply because they make family life easier, reduce the amount of time parents spend caring, or because a parent would prefer not to provide that support themselves. How much unpaid care should parents, siblings, grandparents and other informal supports be expected to provide before disability support becomes the responsibility of the NDIS? What risks exist if this paid or unpaid support breaks down?
Governance and Ministerial Powers
Proposed change (Bill section) What this could mean in real life My experience /
Submission 2487
Greater Reliance on Legislative Instruments and Delegated Rules
Significant decisions about eligibility, budgets, support categories and planning could potentially be changed through instruments and rules rather than through the full Parliamentary process.
The Bill allows the Minister to temporarily change how certain parts of the NDIS Act operate without having to pass a new Act of Parliament first or uses the usual parliamentary process.
Families may wish to consider whether important changes should always be debated and approved by Parliament.
The Minister Has Greater Influence Over Pricing Arrangements
While the NDIS Review recommended an independent organisation should set pricing (such as IHACPA) this bill transfers pricing power directly to the NDIS Minister with advice from the Agency.
Self-Managers would still be able to pay above the Pricing Caps.
Different pricing caps can also be set for different providers (i.e. registered and unregistered).
What conflict of interest exists when the Minister responsible for controlling (and right now reducing) NDIS expenditure is also given the power to set the prices the Scheme will pay?
Informal Supports and Carers
Proposed Change | What This Could Mean in Real Life | My Experience / what I want the Senate to know
Increased reliance on informal supports and unpaid carers | When formal supports are reduced, the work does not disappear. It is often transferred to parents, g grandparents, siblings and other family members, odisproportionately impacting women. | How will this impact women with disability in coercive control situations?\nHow will this impact women in paid employment?