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

Submission 2521

Submission on the

National Disability Insurance

Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026

Prepared by SensesWA in collaboration

with Deafblind Australia, Able Australia,

and other organisations representing people with deafblindness / dual sensory loss

JULY 2026

Submission 2521

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Summary of Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Response to Proposed Amendments ………………………………………………………………………….. 5

1. Participant Classifications and Administrative Recognition ………………………………………. 5
2. Defining Functional Capacity ……………………………………………………………………………… 5
3. Limiting Unscheduled Plan Reassessments …………………………………………………………… 6
4. Strengthening the Link Between Impairment and Support Need …………………………………. 6
5. Support Determinations and Funding Caps……………………………………………………………. 7
6. Reasonable and Necessary Supports …………………………………………………………………… 7
7. Reliance on Published Evidence ………………………………………………………………………….. 7
8. Plan Suspensions and Participant Revocation ……………………………………………………….. 8
9. Changes to Permanence and Treatment Requirements ……………………………………………. 8
10. Provider Registration, Market Stewardship and Thin Markets …………………………………… 8
11. Governance, Pricing and Automated Decision-Making …………………………………………… 9 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Supporting organisations …………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Page 2 of 9

Submission 2521

Acknowledgements

SensesWA acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands on which this submission was developed and pay our respects to their elders past and present.

SensesWA and collaborating organisations wish to acknowledge the unique and central role that Deafblind Australia DBA played in the development of this submission. The content draws directly on deafblind community feedback contributed by DBA, ensuring that the lived experience of deafblind people remains at the heart of this document. This submission also builds on and supports the original submission put forward by DBA, with the consortium coming together to strengthen and advance the DBA’s proposals.

Summary of Recommendations

SensesWA and collaborating organisations acknowledge the need to ensure the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). However, we are concerned that several proposed amendments may undermine the rights, inclusion, and support needs of people with deafblindness and others with complex and low-incidence disabilities.

We recommend that the Bill be amended to:

1. Legislate that assessments of the functional capacity and support needs of people with deafblindness that consider environmental, communication, and contextual factors be undertaken by a professional with an understanding of the impact of deafblindness.

   2. Retain the flexibility to reassess whenever there is a substantial impact on a

participant’s support needs, regardless of whether the change was foreseeable.

3. Maintain recognition that disability-related support needs arise through the interaction between impairment, environment and participation barriers

4. Ensure support determinations cannot override individually assessed reasonable and necessary support requirements.

5. Ensure value-for-money assessments compare supports that address the same needs and deliver comparable outcomes.

6. Require decision-makers to consider participant outcomes, expert clinical advice and lived experience alongside published research.

7. Legislate a requirement that all contact attempts be made using the participant’s nominated accessible communication method before suspension or revocation powers are exercised.Additional time should also be provided for participants who require interpreting, translation, or alternative formats.

8. Clarify that access to disability supports is not contingent upon undertaking medical interventions that a person does not wish to pursue.

9. Conduct impact assessments for low-incidence and thin-market disability cohorts before introducing significant changes to provider registration, pricing or plan management arrangements.

10. Require public consultation and disability sector co-design before implementing pricing determinations, support determinations or automated decision-making systems.

11. Require all consultation and co-design processes relating to the NDIS to be accessible to people with deafblindness, including through the provision of Auslan interpreting, adapted forms of Auslan including tactile Auslan, and other tactile communication

Page 3 of 9

Submission 2521

methods, accessible formats, communication support and sufficient preparation and response time.

Executive Summary

SensesWA, together with Deafblind Australia, Able Australia and other organisations supporting people with deafblindness and living with dual sensory impairment, welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

People with deafblindness represent a highly diverse population whose support needs arise not only from hearing and vision impairments but also from the interaction between those impairments and environmental, communication, and social barriers. Effective participation often depends on access to communication support, interpreting services, specialist assistance, accessible information and inclusive community environments.

While many of the proposed reforms seek to improve consistency, integrity and sustainability within the NDIS, there is a significant risk that the combined effect of the amendments will move the Scheme away from its original person-centred approach. Several provisions place increased emphasis on impairment, standardisation and funding constraints while reducing attention to individual circumstances, environmental barriers and participant choice.

The organisations involved in this submission are particularly concerned about proposals that:

• Exclude environmental factors from functional capacity assessments.
• Restrict access to plan reassessments.
• Permit support determinations and funding caps that override individual assessments.
• Narrow the interpretation of reasonable and necessary supports.
• Limit access to the Scheme based on treatment pathways.
• Increase the use of administrative and automated decision-making powers without sufficient safeguards.

These concerns are amplified for people with deafblindness and for others with low-incidence disabilities because they are often poorly represented in datasets, research evidence, policy development processes and service systems.

The sustainability of the NDIS is important. However, sustainability should not be achieved by limiting access to supports that are necessary for participation, communication, inclusion and fundamental human rights. Long-term sustainability will be best supported through investment in accessible mainstream systems, stronger foundational supports and genuine co-design with people with disability.

Page 4 of 9

Submission 2521

Background

SensesWA and collaborating organisations support Australians with deafblindness and those living with dual sensory impairment across a broad range of ages, cultures, communities and support needs.

Deafblindness is a distinct disability arising from the combined impact of hearing and vision loss. It significantly affects communication, mobility, access to information, participation in education and employment, community inclusion and independence.

The deafblind community includes people who:

• Are completely deaf and blind.

• Have residual functional hearing and vision.

• Use Auslan, spoken language, tactile communication methods, braille, communication technologies and a wide range of alternative and augmentative communication methods.

• Have congenital, acquired or progressive conditions.

• Live with multiple disabilities and complex support needs. A longstanding concern for the deafblind community is the lack of reliable identification and classification within NDIA systems. We understand that deafblind participants are frequently not recorded using appropriate disability classifications. This issue has important implications for any proposal that introduces participant classes, prescribed supports or funding determinations based on administrative categories.

Our response to the Bill is informed by the lived experiences of deafblind participants across Australia and by the practical challenges they face in accessing communication support, specialist services and equitable participation in society.

Response to Proposed Amendments

1. Participant Classifications and Administrative Recognition Any future system based on participant classes or support determinations must first address the longstanding failure to accurately identify deafblind participants within NDIA systems.

Without reliable identification, deafblind participants risk being assigned to inappropriate participant groups and may be denied access to supports that reflect the full complexity of their needs.

We recommend a comprehensive review of disability classification and recording processes before participant classes are used for funding, planning or support determinations.

2. Defining Functional Capacity We support efforts to improve consistency in assessing functional capacity. However, we are concerned that the proposed definition places too much emphasis on impairment and too little on environmental and social factors.

Page 5 of 9

Submission 2521

The NDIS Review recommended that functional capacity assessments recognise that disability can fluctuate over time and vary with a person’s environment. The Review also emphasised the importance of consultation with people with disability when defining functional capacity.

For deafblind people, functioning cannot be separated from environmental conditions. For example:

• Auslan communication skills are of limited value if no one in the environment can communicate in Auslan.

• Accessible information only supports participation when it is actually provided in an accessible format.

• Communication support needs vary substantially depending on the accessibility of services and communities.

A definition of functional capacity that excludes environmental considerations risks misrepresenting the real support needs of participants.

Recommendation

Legislate a requirement that assessments of functional capacity and support needs of people with deafblindness which consider environmental, communication and contextual factors, be undertaken by a professional with an understanding of the impact of deafblindness.

3. Limiting Unscheduled Plan Reassessments We understand the desire to reduce unnecessary reassessments. However, many reassessment requests arise because initial plans do not adequately meet participant needs.

The proposed threshold requiring a significant, unanticipated and ongoing change may unintentionally exclude participants whose circumstances change in important but foreseeable ways.

For example:

• Ageing carers entering residential care.
• Loss of informal supports.
• Progressive changes associated with disability.
• End-of-life support requirements. These situations may substantially affect support needs even when they are not “unanticipated.”

Recommendation

Retain the flexibility to reassess whenever there is a substantial impact on a participant’s support needs, regardless of whether the change was foreseeable.

4. Strengthening the Link Between Impairment and Support Need The proposal to restrict supports to those arising directly from an impairment does not reflect the lived experience of Deafblind people.

Page 6 of 9

Submission 2521

Support needs emerge from the interaction between a person’s impairment and their environment. Communication access, interpreting services and specialist supports are examples of supports that become necessary because society is not universally accessible.

We are concerned that narrowing the relationship between impairment and support need will reduce access to communication supports and other essential services.

Recommendation

Maintain recognition that disability-related support needs arise through the interaction between impairment, environment and participation barriers.

5. Support Determinations and Funding Caps The proposed powers that would allow support determinations to establish maximum funding amounts, support intensity levels and participant class-specific rules raise significant concerns.

For deafblind participants, support needs vary substantially depending on communication needs, geographic location, availability of interpreters and local market conditions. Standardised limits risk producing inequitable outcomes.

Recommendation

Ensure support determinations cannot override individually assessed reasonable and necessary support requirements.

6. Reasonable and Necessary Supports The current principles-based framework allows the NDIS to respond to individual circumstances and diverse support needs.

We are concerned that proposed amendments place excessive emphasis on:

• Cost containment.
• Standardisation.
• Comparisons between dissimilar supports. In the deafblind context, supports that appear less expensive may be unable to provide equivalent outcomes. For example, audiology services and Auslan interpreting services are not interchangeable and should not be compared as alternatives solely because both relate to hearing impairment.

Recommendation

Ensure value-for-money assessments compare supports that address the same needs and deliver comparable outcomes.

7. Reliance on Published Evidence The Bill would increase the importance of peer-reviewed and published evidence when determining appropriate supports.

This creates risks for participants with:

Page 7 of 9

Submission 2521

• Rare disabilities.
• Low-incidence conditions.
• Emerging support practices.
• Limited research representation. This is particularly relevant to people with deafblindness as two leading genetic causes of deafblindness, Usher syndrome and CHARGE syndrome, along with others such as Norrie disease and Alstrom syndrome are considered rare and low incidence. The absence of published research should not be interpreted as evidence that a support is ineffective.

Recommendation

Require decision-makers to consider participant outcomes, expert clinical advice and lived experience alongside published research.

8. Plan Suspensions and Participant Revocation We are concerned about proposals that would allow participant status to be suspended or revoked when a participant is considered uncontactable.

People with deafblindness routinely encounter barriers resulting from inaccessible communication methods. We have repeatedly observed situations where preferred communication methods are not used consistently.

Recommendation

Legislate a requirement that all contact attempts be made using the participant’s nominated accessible communication method before suspension or revocation powers are exercised.

Additional time should also be provided for participants who require interpreting, translation, or alternative formats.

9. Changes to Permanence and Treatment Requirements The proposed amendments linking permanence to completion of all appropriate treatment pathways raise serious concerns.

People should not be required to undergo medical procedures, therapies or surgical interventions in order to access disability supports.

For deafblind people, this concern is particularly relevant in relation to hearing interventions such as cochlear implants. Access to communication supports, including Auslan and interpreting services, should never depend on whether an individual chooses to pursue a particular medical treatment.

Recommendation

Clarify that access to disability supports is not contingent upon undertaking medical interventions that a person does not wish to pursue.

10. Provider Registration, Market Stewardship and Thin Markets While stronger safeguards against fraud are important, reforms must not unintentionally reduce the availability of specialist providers in already thin markets.

Page 8 of 9

Submission 2521

Many deafblind participants rely on highly specialised providers and independent practitioners who possess skills, experience and cultural knowledge that are difficult to replace.

Particular caution is required in regional and remote communities.

Recommendation

Conduct impact assessments for low-incidence and thin-market disability cohorts before introducing significant changes to provider registration, pricing or plan management arrangements.

11. Governance, Pricing and Automated Decision-Making We acknowledge the need for efficient administration. However, efficiency should never come at the expense of fairness or accuracy.

Automated systems are especially concerning for cohorts that have historically been poorly represented in datasets and policy design processes.

Similarly, pricing determinations must reflect market realities and the actual cost of delivering specialist supports.

Recommendations

Require public consultation and disability sector co-design before implementing pricing determinations, support determinations or automated decision-making systems.

Require all consultation and co-design processes relating to the NDIS to be accessible to people with deafblindness, including through the provision of Auslan interpreting,, adapted forms of Auslan including tactile Auslan, and other tactile communication methods, accessible formats, communication support and sufficient preparation and response time.

Conclusion

SensesWA and collaborating organisations support efforts to strengthen the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, sustainability must not come at the expense of participant rights, individualised support, accessibility or inclusion.

The proposed amendments contain several provisions that risk shifting the Scheme away from its person-centred foundations and towards a more standardised approach that may disadvantage people with deafblindness and other low-incidence disabilities.

We urge the Australian Government to work closely with people with disability and their representative organisations to ensure the final legislation remains consistent with the purpose of the NDIS and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Supporting organisations

Page 9 of 9