Submission 2610
Phoebe Wright
Developmental Educator
Submission to the Inquiry into the National
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Attention: Ms Jeanette Radcliffe, Committee Secretary, Senate Standing
Committee on Community Affairs
community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
29-05-2026
Dear Ms Radcliffe,
My name is Phoebe Wright, I am a Developmental Educator with nine years of experience in the disability sector. I studied the Bachelor of Disability and Developmental Education at Flinders University, and I provide DE services on a small scale in Southern Tasmania. I am also a casual academic at Flinders University, College of Nursing and Health Sciences.
I appreciate the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. My submission is based on both my own reading of the Amendment Bill, and the concerns brought to me by people who will be impacted. I have serious concerns about the harm that this Bill will cause if it passes without amendment and clarification.
1
Submission 2610
Consultation Period
I have concerns about the short consultation period for the Bill. Two weeks falls well short of the recommendations of The Australian Government’s own Guide to Policy Impact Analysis1. The Guide suggests that a consultation period should be a minimum of 30 days, or longer depending on the complexity of the proposal. Given the long length of the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum, two weeks does not allow for appropriate interpretation and response, and ensures this process is inaccessible to many people.
The Easy Read document produced2 does not meet standard guidelines. The document has high information density, uses abstract language, and has a high number of ‘hard words’ that need to be defined (e.g., technical advisory group; unscheduled reassessment; functional capacity; annual pricing review). These definitions are very close together within the document, and require examples for clarity, which are not provided. Images are poorly aligned to concepts within the text. The document has over-simplified some concepts and excluded key information, to the point of inaccuracy. People who require Easy Read have a right to accurate, accessible information that has undergone usability testing.
Recommendations: ● Extend the consultation period for a minimum of 30 days. ● Provide accessible information about the Amendment Bill, in multiple formats.
Unreviewable Ministerial power to cut plans
In Section 34A it is outlined that the Minister will have power to cut all current plans at reassessment or renewal, by any amount or percentage, without challenge, with unspent funds no longer carrying over at plan renewal. For many participants this will amount to cutting funds that have
1 The Office of Impact Analysis. (2023). Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/australian-government-guide-to-policy-impact-analysi s.pdf 2 The Australian Government Department of Health Disability and Ageing. (2026). Securing the NDIS for Future Generations NDIS Amendment. https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-05/ndis-amendment-securing-the-ndis-for-future-gen erations-bill-2026—fact-sheet-easy-read.pdf
2
Submission 2610
already been determined, through extensive submission and review of evidence, to be ‘reasonable and necessary’.
In particular, the planned cuts to social and community participation funding will create real harm. Although framing of community participation has been reduced within public discussion to recreation, for many Australians, this support means that they are able to safely leave their home, attend essential appointments, work, study and participate in civic life. ● For participants receiving intensive behavioural support and supervision as part of their community participation, this funding prevents unnecessary interactions with the justice system. ● For people whose disability impacts their communication, this funding means they have a voice in their community. ● Community participation allows many participants to attend work or education. ● Access to mobility, swallowing or airway assistance and oversight throughout the day allows some participants to enter their community without the risk of injury and death. Social and community participation supports prevent the widespread isolation and segregation of people with disabilities3 - a core objective of the NDIS. The proposed cuts will mean that participants are without the support, supervision and care that allow them to safely navigate life with dignity. The effect of this will need to be absorbed by mental health services, unemployment services, law enforcement and hospitals.
Recommendations: ● Any percentage reductions to be carried out after independent consultation with the disability community and subject matter experts. ● Automatic exemption from percentage reductions for participants with high or complex support needs, where reduction in supervision or complex health or behavioural supports would result in loss of safety.
3 Macdonald, S. J., Deacon, L., Nixon, J., Akintola, A., Gillingham, A., Kent, J., Ellis, G., Mathews, D., Ismail, A., Sullivan, S., Dore, S., & Highmore, L. (2018). “The invisible enemy”: disability, loneliness and isolation. Disability & Society, 33(7), 1138–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1476224
3
Submission 2610
● Affected participants to reserve the right to review cuts at a plan-by-plan level, as a necessary safeguarding measure. ● Unspent funds to carry over at plan renewal for participants whose needs fluctuate, or who reserve funds for purchase or replacement of equipment.
Needs “directly” arising from NDIS eligible impairments
The addition of the word “directly” within Section 34(1)(aa) attempts to remove a person from their environment and circumstances. In reality, physical, mental, psychosocial, cultural, economic, geographic and personal barriers intersect and compound to determine a person’s functional capacity. The specific process or tool that will be used to determine functional capacity has not yet been defined, leading to ambiguity within this Bill.
Recommendations: ● Any proposed functional capacity assessment tool must be defined, published and subject to review by both subject matter experts and people with disability. The tool must be deemed appropriate for use with people with intellectual disability, people of any age or gender, and culturally appropriate for First Nations people. The tool must be proven to assess functional capacity accurately across a range of disabilities and social groups. A suite of assessment tools wielded by appropriately qualified professionals with relevant knowledge of disability (Developmental Educators, Occupational Therapists or Social Workers with training in comprehensive assessment) is recommended. ● Remove the word “directly” in reference referring to needs arising from eligible impairments (s 34(1)(aa)).
Requirement to exhaust treatment options
Section 25A(2) requires that applicants exhaust appropriate treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme. This means that a person with disability may be required to provide proof of treatment,
4
Submission 2610
regardless of cost, geographic location, transport barriers, wait time, cultural or personal factors impacting access or suitability. In some cases, treatments considered ‘appropriate’ may cause harm based on the person’s circumstances, for example:
● A requirement that a First Nations person living on country travel to a metropolitan area for treatment at a major hospital, exposing them to cultural harm or racism4; ● A requirement that treatment is undertaken by a person with risks and barriers to healthcare such as psychosocial disability, lack of access to childcare during hospital stays, geographic location, or intersecting health risks that may cause complications.
Accessing treatment that may materially improve or alleviate the impact of an impairment may have no bearing on whether the person would be eligible for NDIS supports after said treatment. Therefore, barriers to accessing treatment must not determine ineligibility.
Recommendation: ● Amendment to remove the requirement to exhaust appropriate treatment options in order to be considered eligible.
Financial sustainability over Human Rights
Section 3(1)(d) now states that the scheme is to “provide NDIS supports that are reasonable and necessary, so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme”. This means that financial sustainability will be the key consideration in decision-making by the CEO - placing potential financial burden above the right of disabled people to access reasonable and necessary supports, and to attain choice and control over their lives. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities5 (2006), Australia has a responsibility to reject
4 Coombes, J., Hunter, K., Mackean, T., Holland, A. J. A., Sullivan, E., & Ivers, R. (2018). Factors that impact access to ongoing health care for First Nation children with a chronic condition. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), Article 448. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3263-y 5 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, December 13, 2006, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/conventionrightspersonswithdisabilities.aspx
5
Submission 2610
attitudes and laws that frame disabled people as nothing but a societal burden.
Recommendation: ● Financial sustainability must not carry greater weight in decision making than the rights of disabled people, including choice and control, dignity, and access to life changing and life saving supports.
The listed concerns and recommendations are far from exhaustive. I again reference the short timeframe for consultation. These are simply five areas in which I have identified potential harm that may result from the Bill, upon my initial reading. Working towards scheme sustainability is important but this must not be rushed, and critically, it must not happen without extensive consultation with the community.
Please consider my recommendations, and the voices of disabled people.
Kind regards,
Phoebe Wright
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require more information.
6