Submission 2597
Introduction
I write to express serious concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and its associated policy framework.
While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I am deeply concerned that the current Bill represents a fundamental restructuring of access, eligibility, and funding governance that has proceeded with insufficient transparency, limited parliamentary scrutiny, and inadequate consultation with frontline clinicians and participants.
As a practising speech pathologist working with children and adults with communication disability, autism, developmental language disorder, intellectual disability, and acquired neurological conditions, I am already observing confusion and anxiety within the sector regarding the scope and intent of these reforms.
Concerns regarding parliamentary scrutiny and transparency
I am particularly concerned about the limited transparency surrounding the development and consultation process for this Bill, including:
A compressed or unclear submission timeframe for stakeholders
Limited visibility of draft eligibility frameworks prior to legislative introduction
Reliance on explanatory materials rather than full legislative exposure during consultation phases
This creates a perception that the reform process is administratively driven rather than collaboratively co-designed, despite the significant impact on people with disability.
The complexity of the Bill structure—particularly the use of multiple schedules, delegated instruments, and future-dated implementation provisions—also contributes to a sense of intentional obfuscation of the real-world impact of changes.
Submission 2597
Excessive delegation of power to ministerial instruments
A central concern is the expanded reliance on ministerial and delegated legislative instruments, including:
Determination of “reasonable and necessary supports” frameworks
Definition and recalibration of functional capacity assessment tools
Adjustment of funding categories and budget structures without primary legislative amendment
This effectively enables substantial changes to eligibility and funding allocation without requiring full parliamentary debate or amendment of the Act itself.
From a governance perspective, this risks:
Reduced democratic oversight
Policy volatility depending on ministerial direction
Limited accountability for funding reductions or eligibility tightening
For a scheme of this scale (supporting over 700,000 Australians), such delegation significantly weakens parliamentary scrutiny.
Reduced participant and provider agency in eligibility determination
The Bill introduces a stronger reliance on standardised functional capacity assessments, replacing diagnosis-informed and clinician-informed decision-making.
While standardisation may improve consistency, I am concerned that:
Participants will have limited ability to challenge assessment outcomes
Treating clinicians (e.g., speech pathologists) will have reduced influence on eligibility determination
Assessments may be conducted or interpreted by non-treating or unqualified administrators or assessors with limited contextual understanding of disability presentation
This creates a risk of:
Misclassification of disability severity
Under-recognition of communication disability and other invisible or under recognised disabilities (particularly in autism, developmental language disorder, and psychosocial disability) in contrast with recognisable, often physical disabilities,
Inconsistent outcomes between assessors
Submission 2597
In clinical practice, communication disability is highly context-dependent and cannot always be accurately captured through standardised scoring alone.
Concerns regarding “treatment exhaustion” requirements
The Bill introduces an expectation that applicants demonstrate they have exhausted available treatment options prior to acceptance into the scheme.
This requirement is particularly concerning for speech pathology and allied health because:
Many NDIS participants are accessing therapy because they cannot afford ongoing private intervention
Communication disabilities are often long-term, non-curative, and developmental in nature
“Exhaustion of treatment” risks creating unrealistic and ethically inappropriate thresholds for access
In practice, this may result in:
Delayed early intervention for children
Increased financial burden on families attempting to demonstrate eligibility
Inequitable access based on socioeconomic status rather than functional need
This requirement risks undermining the foundational principle of the NDIS as a support based, not treatment-contingent scheme.
Funding reductions and structural budget impacts
The Bill introduces explicit reductions in certain support categories, including:
Approx. 50% reduction in social and community participation supports
Approx. 10% reduction in capacity-building daily activity supports
Introduction of stricter controls on plan flexibility and unspent fund rollover
Submission 2597
These measures will likely result in:
Reduced therapy intensity and continuity
Less flexibility for episodic or fluctuating disability needs
Increased administrative restrictions on clinical recommendations
Importantly, these reductions are being introduced prior to the full implementation of replacement systems and alternative supports, creating a gap between:
what is being removed, and
what is not yet fully operational elsewhere in the system
Impact on carers and families
A key concern is the increased reliance on unpaid carers due to reduced or delayed access to funded supports.
If eligibility thresholds tighten and funding categories reduce before alternative systems are fully operational, likely outcomes include:
Increased carer burnout
Reduced workforce participation of family members
Greater demand on already stretched public health and education systems
Increased inequity between families who can privately fund therapy and those who cannot
This shift risks transferring system costs from government funding into informal care systems and families, rather than achieving genuine efficiency.
Workforce and allied health sector impacts
From a speech pathology and allied health perspective, these reforms are likely to:
Increase administrative burden associated with functional justification and compliance
Reduce long-term therapy planning certainty
Undermine continuity of care, particularly in paediatric and neurodevelopmental populations
Increase clinician burnout due to ethical tension between funding constraints and clinical need
Smaller providers and sole practitioners may be particularly impacted due to increased compliance requirements and reduced funding flexibility.
Submission 2597
Conclusion
While I acknowledge the intent to ensure the sustainability of the NDIS, I am deeply concerned that the current Bill:
Concentrates significant decision-making power in ministerial instruments with limited parliamentary oversight
Reduces transparency in eligibility and funding decision-making
Restricts clinician input in favour of standardised administrative assessment
Imposes unrealistic treatment prerequisites on individuals who are often already unable to access private care
Introduces funding reductions ahead of system-wide readiness of alternative supports
Increases reliance on unpaid carers and families to fill service gaps
Taken together, these changes risk fundamentally shifting the NDIS away from a rights based disability support system toward a more restrictive, administratively controlled model of access.
I urge the committee to consider amendments that restore:
stronger parliamentary oversight of eligibility and funding rules
greater weight to treating clinician input
protection against premature eligibility exclusion
and phased implementation aligned with availability of alternative supports