National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2492

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2492

New framework planning

• The proposed New Framework Planning system is in direct opposition to Action 3.1, which recommends a more consistent and robust approach. A phone-based assessment conducted by someone who is not a healthcare provider is less robust than the existing process. Use of the I-CAN tool is currently required to be conducted by a healthcare professional. The lack of a requirement to consider medical evidence provided by the applicant also reduces the robusticity of this process. Removing the ability for human staff to amend an algorithmically produced report, and simultaneously removing the right to appeal through the ART, at which 75% of NDIA decisions are currently overruled, is quite literally inhumane. It also aligns the NDIS with the current method of determining aged care funding packages, which is resulting in chronic underfunding and is surely part of the reason why NDIS participants refuse to transition to that system when they pass the age of 65.

End plan rollovers and stop unspent funds being rolled over to ensure plans align with reasonable and necessary decision making

• This proposal is not in line with Recommendation 3, which emphasizes flexibility (Action 3.5) and whole-of person funding (Action 3.3). Changes to funding have been made more restrictive with funding periods, and removing the ability for participants to save their funding for large purchases reduces their ability to spend their budget flexibly. This proposal is especially unfair to rural and remote participants, who underspend not due to a lack of need but paucity of accessible supports. A trust-based approach has been advised (Action 3.6), which is the polar opposite of this proposed change.

Tighter criteria for unscheduled plan reassessments will commence 7 days following Royal Assent of the legislation.

• Nowhere in the recommendations is restriction of plan reassessments mentioned. With the NFP having no requirement to consider medical evidence provided by applicants, surely the ability of those who become participants to submit assessments and reports they are finally able to access with their funding should be enhanced, not restricted.

Participant supports budgets for social, civic and community participation supports and capacity building daily activities will be progressively adjusted from 1 October 2026

• To being adjusting budgets within months, with no input from disabled people, is in direct opposition to Recommendation 22, which emphasizes embedding a person- centred and disability aware culture. The looming threat of being cut off from social and community access that the NDIS has facilitated is imposing stress on the disability community, especially NDIS participants. It gives the impression that the government considers social contact a luxury, when in fact it is a fundamental human need.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2492

Transfer responsibility for pricing decisions to the Minister for Disability and the NDIS.

• The proposition that responsibility for pricing decisions should be transferred to the Minister for Disability and the NDIS is in direct opposition to Action 11.3 which states the responsibility should be transferred to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority.

Differentiated pricing for unregistered providers

• Recommendation 17 outlines actions around provider regulation, but none of the actions refer to differentiating prices between registered and unregistered. It instead advises expansion of worker screening requirements and strengthening of existing safeguards along with developing responsive strategies.
• Before any mandatory registration measures are put in place, the registration system must first be made accessible. It currently requires a licence or passport, and does not accept proof of age card, discriminating against people who can’t drive and have no need or desire to pay the exorbitant cost for a passport. This particularly affects providers who themselves have a disability, reducing their access to economic participation.

Increase evidence required for payments for NDIS supports, including payments at point of service.

• This proposal is also not aligned with Action 3.6, that the NDIA should adopt a trust- based approach to oversight of how participants spend their budget.

More consistently assess if the NDIS is the appropriate system of support and if treatment can alleviate or remedy an impairment.

• This proposed change to eligibility imposes a test more strict than even the DSP. The addition of “alleviate” sets an extremely low bar for rejection of applications. If an applicant’s existing care team have determined that there are not appropriate, available, and accessible treatment options remain, the NDIA should trust that. If the NDIA insists otherwise, they should facilitate access to those treatments. This proposed change would also unfairly affect rural and remote applicants, as their access to treatments and supports are extremely restricted in comparison to individuals living in major population centres.