EAC concerns regarding the Bill’s impact on disability supports (Individual advocacy)

Submission 268

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………….5 1.1 Priority recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………8
About Every Australian Counts…………………………………………………………………………….10
About EAC’s Community Survey and key findings …………………………………………………10
Overview of the Bill and EAC’s position ………………………………………………………………..12 3.1 The Bill’s overall direction and cumulative impact…………………………………………..14
Human rights framework: UNCRPD obligations…………………………………………………….16
Most significant human rights concerns created by the Bill……………………………………17 5.1 Proposed section 34A: funding below assessed need……………………………………….17

5.2 Caps on support intensity and worker-to-participant ratios……………………………..18

5.3 Social and community participation supports…………………………………………………18

5.4 Participant-directed planning, choice and control…………………………………………..19

5.5 Provider registration, commissioning and closed-market risks…………………………19

5.6 Functional capacity assessments and the risk of exclusion ………………………………20

5.7 Permanence, “appropriate treatment” and bodily autonomy…………………………..20

5.8 Foundational supports, alternative supports and other service systems …………..20

5.9 Parental responsibility and unpaid care………………………………………………………….21

5.10 Claims, records, debts and civil penalties ……………………………………………………..21

5.11 Automated decision-making, review rights and procedural fairness ……………….21

5.12 Reassessment, plan renewal, suspension and revocation ………………………………22

5.13 Delegated powers, future rules and ministerial discretion ……………………………..22

Detailed comments on specific proposed amendments………………………………………..23 6.1 Repeal of section 31 of the NDIS Act and participant-directed planning…………….23

6.2 Functional capacity assessments……………………………………………………………………24

6.3 Permanence and “appropriate treatment”……………………………………………………..25

6.4 Expansion of parental responsibility and reliance on unpaid care…………………….27

6.5 Alternative supports and foundational supports……………………………………………..29

Submission 268

6.6 Proposed section 34A and ministerial funding reduction powers ……………………..30

6.7 Provider registration, commissioning and choice and control ………………………….31

6.8 Claims, records, debts, civil penalties……………………………………………………………..32

6.10 Sustainability and the real cost of unmet need………………………………………………33

Accessibility, consultation and safe implementation…………………………………………….36
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………..38 8.1 Priority Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………….38

8.2 Human rights, planning and assessment ………………………………………………………..40

8.3 Funding, caps and reasonable and necessary support……………………………………..40

8.4 Whole-of-person decision-making, evidence and bodily autonomy ………………….41

8.5 Foundational supports, unpaid care and provider choice ………………………………..41

8.6 Claims, debts, automation and review rights…………………………………………………..43

8.7 Reassessment, suspension, delegated powers & implementation…………………….43

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………45 4

Submission 268

Executive Summary Every Australian Counts welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the National Disability Insurance

Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

Every Australian Counts is the grassroots campaign that fought for the introduction of the NDIS and continues to advocate for people with disability, families, carers and supporters to be at the centre of decisions about the Scheme’s future.

Every Australian Counts recommends that the Committee not recommend passage of the Bill in its current form.

The Bill proposes some of the most significant changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme since its introduction. It would substantially alter planning, support eligibility, reassessment processes, delegated legislative powers, ministerial decision making, provider arrangements, participant safeguards, claims, debts and review rights.

Every Australian Counts acknowledges the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, sustainability cannot be achieved by cutting people off from the supports that keep us safe, alive, connected and out of crisis. A sustainable NDIS must protect rights, meet assessed need, maintain choice and control, and prevent avoidable harm.

EAC is deeply concerned that the Bill would move the NDIS away from an individualised,

rights-based scheme and towards a centralised, compliance-heavy and cost-controlled

system. The cumulative effect of the proposed changes would shift power away from people with disability and our families and towards ministerial discretion, future Rules, automated systems and administrative control.

The most serious concern is proposed section 34A. This provision would allow funding for

reasonable and necessary supports to be reduced below the actual cost of those supports. If Parliament accepts that a support is reasonable and necessary, but then permits a plan to fund less than what is required to purchase it, the law would deliberately create unmet

need. This is legislated unmet need. For some participants, especially people who rely on continuous personal care, supervision, respiratory support, psychosocial support,

Submission 268

behaviour support or safe assistance in the community, that unmet need may be life threatening.

Every Australian Counts conducted a national community survey during May 2026 following the introduction of the Bill. The survey findings show overwhelming fear, distrust and opposition to the proposed changes. Seventy-five per cent of respondents stated they were extremely concerned, while a further 16 per cent stated they were very concerned. Only four respondents stated they were not concerned. Similarly, 287 respondents described the changes as very negative, compared with only four respondents who described them as very positive.

These responses do not suggest isolated uncertainty or minor disagreement. They show widespread community alarm about the direction, implementation and likely consequences of the Bill for people with disability and our families.

Respondents consistently raised concerns about:

loss or reduction of essential supports
funding being set below assessed need
reduced participant choice and control
the repeal or weakening of participant-directed planning
functional capacity assessments becoming gatekeeping or rationing tools
uncertainty about foundational supports and alternative supports
increased reliance on unpaid care from families and carers
greater use of ministerial powers and future Rules
reduced transparency and review rights
debts, penalties and administrative consequences for people acting in good faith
automated decision-making and procedural fairness
the pace, accessibility and adequacy of consultation. A recurring concern throughout the survey responses was fear regarding the loss of

supports that participants rely on for daily living, safety, communication, mental health, education, employment and community participation. Participants repeatedly described

the NDIS as a critical safeguard that enables independence, inclusion and dignity.

Submission 268

The Bill also raises serious concerns under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These include the rights to autonomy, choice, independent living, inclusion in the community, equal recognition before the law, access to justice, bodily integrity, informed consent, family life, accessibility, health and an adequate standard of living.

The NDIS is one of the main ways Australia gives practical effect to those rights. Legislation that permits funding below assessed need, narrows access, shifts responsibility onto unpaid carers, limits review rights and places critical detail into future Rules risks breaching those obligations.

Many of the most serious risks arise because the Bill leaves critical operational matters to future Rules, legislative instruments and implementation processes. These include functional capacity assessment methodologies, foundational support arrangements, support determination frameworks, provider arrangements, automation safeguards and reassessment processes.

Parliament is being asked to legislate before people with disability, families, advocates, representative organisations and the Parliament itself can properly understand how the changes will operate in practice.

EAC is deeply concerned that the proposed amendments will:

authorise funding below the actual cost of reasonable and necessary supports ●

weaken participant-directed planning and choice and control ●

permit broad funding caps or support intensity caps that override individual ● need

reduce social and community participation supports that are essential to safety ● and inclusion

increase reliance on unpaid care by parents, families and carers ●

divert people to foundational supports, alternative supports or mainstream ● systems that are not yet available, accessible, enforceable or adequately funded

Submission 268

expose participants, nominees and families to debts or penalties for technical ● or administrative issues

allow automated or opaque decisions to affect plans, funding, claims, debts, ● reassessment, suspension, revocation or participant status

place too much power in future Rules and ministerial instruments with ● insufficient scrutiny.

EAC recognises that the NDIS requires ongoing improvement. However, reform must strengthen participant outcomes and rights, not reduce flexibility, increase uncertainty or shift risk onto people with disability and our families. What is being proposed in this Bill is not reform, is taking Australia backwards to a cruel and rationed system.

1.1 Priority recommendations

If the Bill proceeds, it must be substantially amended. At a minimum, the Committee should recommend that Parliament:

remove proposed section 34A, or amend it so that funding can never be reduced below the actual cost of reasonable and necessary supports;
retain and strengthen participant-directed planning, choice and control, supported decision-making and individualised support;
prohibit broad funding caps, support intensity caps or worker-to-participant ratio caps where they override individual need, safety or continuity of support;
protect participants with high or complex support needs from any support determination or cap that would create unsafe gaps in care;
ensure no person is diverted from the NDIS to foundational supports, alternative supports or mainstream systems unless those supports are actually available, fully funded, accessible, timely, rights-aligned and enforceable;
delete or substantially amend the parental responsibility provisions so that disability-related support needs are not shifted onto parents, families or unpaid carers;

Submission 268

protect participant-led support arrangements, including direct employment, sole traders, independent workers, culturally safe supports, small providers and services for one;
strengthen safeguards around functional capacity assessments, including transparency, assessor qualifications, recognition of fluctuating and psychosocial disability, access to reports, rights to provide evidence and review rights;
limit automated decision-making to low-risk administrative decisions and require human review, reasons, disclosure, audit and merits review for any decision affecting plans, funding, claims, debts, reassessment, suspension, revocation or participant status;
limit delegated legislative and ministerial powers by requiring public exposure drafts, accessible consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, state and territory agreement where required, and UNCRPD compatibility analysis.

The Committee should treat the evidence from people with disability, families, carers and supporters with the seriousness it deserves. The concerns raised in this submission are not abstract. They relate to whether people can get out of bed, eat safely, communicate, parent, work, study, attend appointments, participate in community life, maintain mental health, avoid crisis and live with dignity.

Reducing support in one system does not remove need. It transfers risk to hospitals,

mental health services, homelessness services, aged care, child protection systems, families and people with disability themselves.

For these reasons, Every Australian Counts urges the Committee to recommend that the

Bill not be passed in its current form. At a minimum, the Bill must be substantially

amended to protect reasonable and necessary support, participant-directed planning, choice and control, access to justice, bodily autonomy, family life, community inclusion, and the rights of people with disability and our families under the UNCRPD.

People with disability must remain at the centre of decisions affecting our lives. The NDIS must remain an individualised, rights-based scheme that supports people to live safely,

independently and with dignity in the community.

Submission 268

“ The NDIS has been a life changer for me. I have with my support services in place been able to volunteer at a major Victorian hospital particularly in the area of Disability support. If my support services are cut I would end up not being able to participate in my volunteer work, attend the multiple hospital appointments which will lead to my health decline and ending up in hospital. I already struggle being a burden on society and what is happening at the moment has made me feel that the government see me and other people with a disability a financial burden on society.”

Survey findings are integrated throughout this submission to ensure the lived experiences and concerns of the disability community remain central to the Committee’s consideration of the Bill.

All participant quotations included throughout this submission are reproduced verbatim from survey responses, with minor formatting corrections only where necessary for readability or de-identification.

Overview of the Bill and EAC’s position This section sets out EAC’s overall position before the submission turns to the human rights framework, the most serious risks in the Bill, detailed comments on specific amendments, and the actions Parliament should take.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026 proposes wide-ranging changes to the operation of the NDIS. Introduced on 14 May 2026, the Bill substantially alters key components of the Scheme, including access eligibility, planning processes, reassessment arrangements, support definitions, delegated powers and participant safeguards.

These changes represent one of the most significant legislative restructures of the NDIS since its introduction. They must be judged by their real-world consequences for people with disability and our families, not by administrative convenience or budget targets alone.

EAC recognises that the NDIS must remain sustainable into the future. However, sustainability must be understood responsibly. A sustainable NDIS is one that enables people with disability to live safely, independently and with dignity, while maintaining access to the supports required for participation in community life.

EAC survey respondents repeatedly expressed concern that the proposed changes place too much emphasis on administrative consistency and financial control, while giving insufficient attention to participant rights, lived experience and the long-term consequences, including the human and financial costs, of withdrawing support.

Submission 268

Survey respondents repeatedly described the NDIS as essential to avoiding crisis, maintaining housing stability, remaining in employment or education, supporting mental health and wellbeing, reducing carer burnout and participating in family and community life.

One survey respondent who supports an NDIS participant stated:

“The distress caused by the confusion and changes in the NDIS has meant that many participants on the scheme are in a state of increased mental health crisis and reduced psychosocial functioning. One client has been so incredibly distressed over these changes that she has been suicidal, requiring access to crisis lines and hospitalisation. This client has directly stated that her distress is due to these changes - and they are not the only client.”

The changes proposed in the Bill must therefore be considered not only through an administrative or financial lens, but through the practical reality of how people with disability experience the Scheme in everyday life.

EAC is particularly concerned that the cumulative effect of the proposed changes may increase barriers to support, reduce participant autonomy, weaken safeguards, create uncertainty regarding future eligibility and funding, increase reliance on unpaid family care and place additional pressure on already under-resourced mainstream systems.

The submission also notes that many significant operational details associated with the changes remain unclear or deferred to future Rules, delegated legislation and implementation processes. This includes critical information regarding functional capacity assessment methodologies, foundational support eligibility, support determination frameworks, participant planning frameworks, automation safeguards and implementation sequencing.

The absence of this information makes it difficult for participants, families, advocates and Parliament itself to fully assess the likely consequences of the changes.

Participants repeatedly expressed concern that they were being asked to comment on changes without access to critical operational detail regarding how the system may function in practice.

EAC believes that changes of this scale must be transparent, evidence-based, rights focused and genuinely co-designed with people with disability.

Submission 268

3.1 The Bill’s overall direction and cumulative impact

EAC is gravely concerned that the Bill represents a significant philosophical and operational shift in the direction of the NDIS.

While the Government has framed the Bill as necessary to restore the “original intent” of the Scheme and improve sustainability, many participants and families who responded to EAC’s survey expressed concern that the Bill would move the Scheme further away from its participant-centred foundation and were not in line with the Scheme’s original intent.

Across the survey responses, many community members expressed concern that the Bill prioritises administrative consistency, expenditure management and system control over individual circumstances, support need and participant wellbeing.

Survey respondents described concern that people with disability are increasingly being viewed through the lens of cost and system sustainability rather than rights, inclusion, support need, outcomes and equal citizenship.

The risks described by respondents are serious. Loss of support can lead to deterioration in health, mental health crisis, family breakdown, homelessness, institutionalisation, preventable hospitalisation and unsafe gaps in care. For some participants, especially those with high or complex support needs, these consequences can be life-threatening.

One survey respondent stated:

Without ongoing NDIS support, there is a high likelihood that both the participant and carer would require increased intervention from health services, hospitals, and other government-funded supports. In the long term, this would result in far greater costs to the government than continuing the current supports in place.

Another:

It not addressing fundamental issues that are problematic within the NDIS. It is just creating a shift that will create good numbers for Government. For example, they think less people on the NDIS, less expenses. Its not that dead simple.

These concerns are particularly important when considered alongside several proposed changes that narrow support eligibility, increase ministerial powers, rely heavily on delegated legislation, reduce opportunities for participant-directed planning and increase reliance on standardised assessment frameworks.

Taken together, respondents feared these changes will fundamentally change how participants interact with the Scheme.

Submission 268

EAC is especially concerned about the cumulative impact of these changes. While individual amendments may appear administrative or technical in isolation, the changes collectively risk creating a more restrictive and less responsive system for people with disability.

Many respondents expressed concern that the changes may disproportionately affect people with psychosocial disability, fluctuating conditions, autism, intellectual disability and complex support needs.

The Bill also places substantial reliance on future Rules, delegated legislation and implementation arrangements that have not yet been publicly released. Critical operational details regarding assessment methodologies, support determination frameworks, foundational support arrangements and automation safeguards remain unclear.

This creates significant uncertainty for participants and limits meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of the changes.

Participants also repeatedly expressed concern that the changes risk transferring greater responsibility onto unpaid carers, families and overstretched mainstream systems already experiencing significant demand pressures.

One respondent stated:

“Who’s going to look after him if anything happens to me? Do we start looking for institutions to put our loved ones in now because with these cuts it goes back to the Carers to muddle through this all again.”

This response reflects broader concerns raised throughout the survey regarding increasing reliance on unpaid carers, ageing parent carers, and fears that reductions in support may result in institutionalisation, family breakdown or crisis care arrangements.

Respondents repeatedly described already providing extraordinary levels of unpaid care and expressed concern that reductions in support may intensify this burden.

Participants also expressed concern regarding transparency and accountability throughout the proposed changes, particularly in relation to automation, delegated legislation and future support determination and funding decisions.

Another shared their concerns around accountability:

Under the NDIS, participants generally have legal rights, review pathways, individual plans, and funding tied to their needs. It is unclear whether foundational

Submission 268

supports will offer the same level of enforceability or whether people will simply be told to join generic waiting lists with no guarantee of support.

EAC recognises that the NDIS requires ongoing improvement and change. However, changes must strengthen participant outcomes and rights rather than reduce flexibility, increase uncertainty or shift risk onto people with disability and their families.

Human rights framework: UNCRPD obligations The NDIS was established as a rights-based scheme intended to support people with disability to live independently, participate in the community and exercise choice and control over our lives.

The proposed changes must therefore be assessed against Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the principles underpinning the NDIS Act itself.

The NDIS is a core national mechanism for giving practical effect to the rights of people with disability and our families. Those rights include individual autonomy, freedom to make choices, independence, accessibility, equality and non-discrimination, equal recognition before the law, access to justice, bodily integrity, informed consent, respect for home and family, adequate support, and the right to live independently and be included in the community.

EAC’s survey respondents repeatedly expressed concern that the Bill would move the Scheme away from a social and rights-based model of disability and toward a more restrictive, medicalised and compliance-driven system.

These concerns were particularly strong in relation to functional capacity assessments, permanence requirements, treatment expectations, narrowed support definitions, increasing automation, reduced participant direction in planning, increased reliance on unpaid care, and expanded ministerial power to determine funding and support arrangements.

The cumulative effect of the Bill must be considered. A single change may appear technical in isolation. Together, the proposed changes risk reducing access to supports, weakening review rights, increasing administrative power, undermining choice and control, and leaving people without the practical support required to live safely and participate in ordinary community life.

EAC considers that the Committee should not recommend passage of the Bill unless it is satisfied that every provision is consistent with the UNCRPD, protects participant safety, preserves individualised support, and provides enforceable rights to reasons, review and remedy.

Submission 268

Most significant human rights concerns created by the

Bill

This section applies the UNCRPD framework to the most serious concerns created by the Bill. Proposed section 34A is addressed first because it poses the clearest and most dangerous risk of legislated unmet need.

5.1 Proposed section 34A: funding below assessed need

Proposed section 34A is the most serious human rights concern in the Bill. It would allow the Minister, by legislative instrument, to reduce funding for specified groups of supports by a percentage lower than 100 per cent. Proposed subsection 34A(5) would allow that determination to operate even where the result is that funding for a reasonable and necessary support is less than the total cost of that support, or funding for all reasonable and necessary supports in the plan is less than their total cost.

This should alarm the Committee. If a support is reasonable and necessary, but the plan does not fund the actual cost of that support, the law has created planned unmet need. That is inconsistent with the core promise of the NDIS and with the rights protected by the UNCRPD.

The likely consequences are severe. Participants may lose support workers, miss essential personal care, be unable to attend medical appointments, lose access to communication support, experience preventable deterioration, be forced to rely on exhausted families, or be pushed into hospitals, mental health units, aged care, homelessness services or segregated living arrangements. For people with high and complex support needs, unsafe gaps in care may be life-threatening.

Proposed section 34A risks breaching UNCRPD Article 19 because it can remove the supports people need to live independently and be included in the community. It risks breaching Article 28 because it undermines access to adequate support and social protection. It risks breaching Article 5 because broad reductions may have unequal and disproportionate effects on people with the highest support needs.

It also undermines Article 4 because it places significant rights-limiting powers into delegated instruments rather than requiring full parliamentary scrutiny and close consultation with people with disability through our representative organisations.

EAC’s position is clear. Proposed section 34A must be removed. If Parliament refuses to remove it, the legislation must state that funding can never be reduced below the actual cost of reasonable and necessary supports.

Submission 268

5.2 Caps on support intensity and worker-to-participant ratios

The Bill must not permit broad caps on support intensity, support categories or worker-to participant ratios where those caps override individual need, safety, continuity of care or the need for one-to-one support. Such caps would replace individualised assessment with administrative rationing.

For some participants, one-to-one support is not a preference. It is required for safe swallowing, communication, airway management, personal care, behaviour support, seizure risk, psychosocial safety, community access, or protection from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. A ratio cap that ignores these realities would create foreseeable risk.

These provisions raise serious concerns under UNCRPD Articles 10, 14, 17 and 19 because unsafe limits on support can affect life, liberty, bodily integrity, community participation and freedom from segregation.

At minimum, there must be automatic exemptions from any support determination or cap for participants with high or complex support needs, including participants requiring 24 hour supervision, intensive one-to-one support, complex health support, behavioural support, airway management, swallowing support or other continuous safety supports.

5.3 Social and community participation supports

EAC is deeply concerned by any pathway that would reduce social and community participation supports. These supports are often spoken about as if they are optional, they are a critical part of the original intent of the Scheme.

For many people with disability, they are essential supports that prevent isolation, maintain mental health, enable family life, support volunteering or employment, and allow people to access ordinary community life.

For participants with high and complex support needs, community participation funding can form part of a 24-hour support framework. It may include communication support, personal care, active support, behavioural support, supervision, support to attend medical appointments, and support to maintain family relationships. A percentage cut does not reduce the need for safe assistance. It simply creates a gap where no safe support arrangement exists.

Cuts to these supports risk breaching UNCRPD Article 19, which protects the right to live independently and be included in the community, and Article 30, which protects participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport. They also risk worsening loneliness, mental health distress and preventable crisis.

Submission 268

5.4 Participant-directed planning, choice and control

The repeal of section 31 and the reduced legislative protection for participant-directed planning are not minor drafting changes and are rejected by EAC. They strike at the heart of the NDIS as a scheme based on individual choice, control and self-determination.

UNCRPD Article 3 recognises respect for dignity, individual autonomy, freedom to make one’s own choices and independence. Article 12 protects equal recognition before the law. Article 19 requires access to support that enables people with disability to live in the community with choices equal to others. These rights are weakened if planning becomes standardised, opaque and administratively driven.

The Bill should retain and strengthen participant-directed planning principles. It should require accessible communication, supported decision-making, trauma-informed practice, cultural safety, proper consideration of lived experience, and genuine involvement of participants and nominees in decisions affecting plans and supports.

The Bill must be amended to delete item 66, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill

5.5 Provider registration, commissioning and closed-market risks

EAC is concerned that the Bill, future rules or related instruments could create pathways toward registered-provider-only, commissioned or block-funded arrangements that reduce choice and control.

That risk is especially serious for participants who rely on trusted workers, sole traders, independent workers, direct employment, culturally safe supports, small community providers or individualised arrangements that do not fit conventional provider models.

The practical right to choose who provides support is a safety issue as well as a rights issue. Many people with disability need workers who understand communication, routines, health risks, cultural needs, behaviour support strategies, family context and personal boundaries. For people who have experienced poor support, abuse or neglect, being forced into unsuitable provider arrangements can increase risk rather than reduce it.

Any expansion of registration or provider definitions must protect participant-led support arrangements, including direct employment, sole traders, independent workers and services for one.

If mandatory registration is expanded, there must be a specific self-directed registration category before those changes affect people who self-manage or self-direct supports. Restrictions on these arrangements should be justified, proportionate, based on individual circumstances, and subject to notice, reasons and review rights.

Submission 268

5.6 Functional capacity assessments and the risk of exclusion

The Bill creates serious concern that future functional capacity assessment systems may become gatekeeping tools rather than fair assessments of support need. This is especially concerning for people with psychosocial disability, fluctuating conditions, autism, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, complex communication needs, invisible disability and people whose functional capacity is shaped by environment, trauma, stress, burnout or support availability.

Assessment systems that fail to recognise fluctuating disability or environmental barriers risk breaching UNCRPD Articles 5 and 9 and may undermine Article 19 by excluding people from the supports needed to live safely in the community.

Functional capacity assessments must be transparent, accessible, culturally safe, trauma informed, reviewable and never used as a blunt rationing mechanism.

5.7 Permanence, “appropriate treatment” and bodily autonomy

The Bill’s approach to permanence and “appropriate treatment” raises serious concerns about bodily autonomy and informed consent. People with disability should not be pressured to pursue treatment, intervention or behavioural programs in order to prove eligibility for disability support.

UNCRPD Article 17 protects the integrity of the person and Article 25 recognises the right to health care on the basis of free and informed consent. Any treatment-related provision must consider a person’s real circumstances, including geography, cost, waitlists, accessibility barriers, risk, trauma, cultural safety, clinical appropriateness and the person’s informed decision. A refusal of treatment for non-medical reasons should not be used to strip a person of disability support without a full and fair assessment of those circumstances.

5.8 Foundational supports, alternative supports and other service systems

EAC is deeply concerned that people could be diverted away from the NDIS into foundational supports, alternative supports or mainstream service systems that do not yet exist, are not adequately funded, are not accessible, or do not provide enforceable individual rights.

UNCRPD Article 19 requires access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community. Article 28 protects access to social protection. These obligations are not met by simply pointing to another system if that system cannot provide equivalent, timely, rights-aligned disability support.

Submission 268

The Bill should state that a person must not be excluded from the NDIS because another system exists unless that system actually provides equivalent, timely and rights-aligned disability supports with proven outcomes that meet the person’s needs.

5.9 Parental responsibility and unpaid care

The Bill risks shifting greater responsibility onto families and unpaid carers, particularly mothers, single parents, disabled parents, ageing carers and families in regional and remote communities. This is a serious rights issue that goes beyond household efficiency or informal support.

UNCRPD Article 23 protects respect for home and family. Article 19 protects independent living and inclusion. A child or adult should not lose access to disability-related supports because a family member is presumed able to provide more unpaid labour. Many families are already exhausted. Increasing reliance on unpaid care can lead to burnout, family breakdown, unsafe support gaps and crisis.

5.10 Claims, records, debts and civil penalties

EAC is concerned that reduced claiming periods, expanded debt provisions linked to record-keeping, and new civil penalty powers may create a punitive environment for participants, nominees and families. Integrity measures must target deliberate misuse. They must not punish people who acted in good faith, received supports, followed unclear advice, or faced disability-related barriers to record-keeping.

UNCRPD Articles 12 and 13 require equal recognition before the law and access to justice. These rights are undermined where people face debts, penalties or loss of support because of technical or administrative issues without accessible information, a chance to fix records, proper reasons and merits review.

The Bill should retain a fair claiming window of at least six months, with broad reasonable-excuse protections. A debt should not be raised solely because of a technical or administrative record-keeping failure where supports were genuinely received and claimed in good faith. Participants, nominees and plan managers should have access to binding pre-claim advice and a statutory safe harbour where they rely in good faith on written NDIA advice.

5.11 Automated decision-making, review rights and procedural fairness

The Bill must not allow automated systems to make or drive decisions that affect a person’s plan, funding, claims, debts, access or participant status without strong

Submission 268

safeguards. Automation can compound errors, obscure accountability and make it harder for people to understand or challenge decisions.

UNCRPD Articles 12 and 13 require accessible reasons, human review and effective access to justice. Automated decision-making should be limited to low-risk administrative decisions. Any decision affecting funding, claims, plans, debts, reassessment, suspension, revocation or participant status must require human review, clear reasons, disclosure that automation was used, accessible appeal information, independent audit and merits review.

5.12 Reassessment, plan renewal, suspension and revocation

The Bill’s approach to reassessment, automatic plan renewal, suspension and revocation raises serious safety concerns. Participants must be able to seek timely reassessment when support needs, informal supports, housing, employment, safety or living arrangements change. There must be an urgent pathway where a participant, nominee or treating practitioner identifies safety, housing, health, behavioural or support-breakdown risk.

Automatic plan renewal must not remove, reduce or alter support funding without participant involvement, written reasons and review rights. One-off funding that has been quoted, ordered or actioned should carry over until the support is delivered and claimed.

Plan suspension or revocation can have devastating consequences. Before any suspension or revocation, the NDIA must be required to use accessible communication, attempt contact through all available channels, contact nominees or authorised supporters, consider disability-related barriers, hospitalisation, homelessness, family violence, psychosocial crisis and other protected circumstances, and provide urgent reinstatement pathways.

5.13 Delegated powers, future rules and ministerial discretion

The Bill leaves too much to future rules, legislative instruments and administrative frameworks that have not been released. This prevents participants, families, Parliament and the broader community from understanding the full consequences of the Bill before it is voted on.

Major decisions affecting access, support definitions, funding levels, provider status, claiming, debts, planning, reassessment, suspension, revocation and review rights should not be left to future instruments with limited scrutiny. Any such rules should require the highest level of parliamentary oversight, public exposure drafts, co-design with people with disability and our representative organisations, and clear human rights statements that address UNCRPD compliance.

Submission 268

Detailed comments on specific proposed amendments This section provides more detailed comments on the specific proposed amendments. It should be read together with the human rights analysis above and the recommendations below.

6.1 Repeal of section 31 of the NDIS Act and participant-directed planning

One of the most significant changes proposed by the Bill is the repeal of Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the NDIS Act, including section 31. Section 31 currently embeds participant-centred planning principles within the legislative framework and recognises the importance of participant involvement in the preparation of plans. The proposed repeal raises significant concern regarding the future legislative protection of participant choice and control within planning processes. Section 31 currently provides the clearest legislative statement that participant plans should be individualised and directed by participants themselves.

Participants repeatedly expressed concern that the repeal of section 31, when considered alongside other changes in the Bill, may result in planning processes becoming increasingly standardised, inflexible and administratively driven.

Many respondents described concern that participant voice and individual circumstances may become less central to future planning decisions.

These concerns are closely connected to broader changes throughout the Bill, including expanded ministerial powers, increased reliance on delegated legislation, functional assessment changes and restrictions on reassessment pathways.

Several respondents expressed concern that standardised planning approaches fail to account for the diversity and complexity of disability experiences, particularly for people with fluctuating disability, psychosocial disability and complex support needs.

The repeal of section 31 also raises broader concerns regarding the future role of participant choice and control within the Scheme.

Rather than repealing section 31, EAC believes the legislation should strengthen and modernise these principles by explicitly recognising accessibility, cultural safety, trauma informed practice, fluctuating disability and participant autonomy.

EAC recommends that the Bill is amended to delete item 66, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill

Submission 268

6.2 Functional capacity assessments

The Bill introduces a new definition of “functional capacity” and establishes the legislative basis for future assessment changes that may significantly influence access decisions, planning processes and support funding. While many operational details remain deferred to future Rules and implementation frameworks, respondents repeatedly expressed concern that the changes signal a move toward increasingly standardised and medicalised assessment systems.

EAC survey respondents described deep anxiety about being reduced to narrow measurements of function that fail to reflect the complexity of everyday life with disability. Respondents repeatedly explained that disability does not exist in isolation from environment, support availability, fatigue, trauma, accessibility, mental health, discrimination and social context. Many participants fear that future assessment systems may focus too heavily on what a person can do in highly controlled circumstances rather than whether they can safely and sustainably participate in real life.

These concerns were particularly strong among people with psychosocial disability, autism, chronic illness, neurological conditions and fluctuating disability. Participants repeatedly stressed that support needs can change dramatically depending on stress, burnout, housing instability, access to informal supports, sensory environment, health deterioration and cumulative exhaustion.

A recurring theme throughout the survey was the emotional burden associated with repeatedly proving disability and support need. Many respondents described existing reassessment processes as exhausting, distressing and retraumatising, particularly where participants already experience communication barriers, mental health challenges or fluctuating conditions.

Several respondents expressed concern that future assessment systems may fail to adequately recognise invisible disability, episodic impairment and cumulative functional impact across multiple conditions. Participants feared increasingly rigid assessment systems may prioritise administrative consistency over lived reality.

EAC is particularly concerned that critical operational details regarding future assessment systems remain unclear and relegated to legislative instrument instead of primary legislation. These include:

assessment methodologies
peer comparison frameworks
assessor qualifications
oversight arrangements 24

Submission 268

participant safeguards
review mechanisms
transparency requirements. This limits the ability of participants and Parliament to fully assess the likely impact of the changes.

Respondents repeatedly emphasised that support needs arise through the interaction between impairment, accessibility, environment, available supports and broader social barriers. EAC is concerned that assessment systems which fail to recognise these factors risk underestimating support need and creating additional barriers to participation, independence and safety.

Rather than creating greater trust in the Scheme, many respondents feared the changes may intensify uncertainty, anxiety and adversarial interactions between participants and the NDIA.

6.3 Permanence and “appropriate treatment”

EAC is deeply concerned about the proposed permanence provisions and the introduction of “appropriate treatment” considerations within the access framework.

Survey respondents repeatedly expressed fear and confusion regarding how these provisions may operate in practice. Many participants stated they were uncertain whether future eligibility for support may depend on pursuing therapies, interventions, behavioural programs or medical treatments that may be inaccessible, inappropriate, ineffective or personally distressing.

One respondent shared:

Who knows how much funding would be available, what type of supports would be available, how supports could be accessed (e.g. where) and what level of choice, if any, would be available. And what happens to people who live in regional areas? Also, what happens if you get turfed off the NDIS and foundational supports are not yet available? Also, how is it decided what amount of supports you are eligible for? What if the type of support you need isn’t available as a foundational support? Not everyone is the same, and a ‘cookie cutter’ approach will not work.

Another survey respondent shared concerns about the I-CAN assessment tool and assessors:

Submission 268

I am particularly worried about the I CAN assessment tool - A standardised, questionnaire-style tool cannot adequately capture the complexity and nuance of disability - especially for children and for people with “hidden” disabilities such as Autism. It is also very worrying that assessors may not be required to have a background in allied health, disability, or child development, and may only receive minimal online training.

A recurring concern throughout the survey responses was the fear that people with disability may increasingly be expected to justify why they have not pursued particular treatments in order to establish permanence or maintain access to support. These concerns were particularly strong among autistic participants, people with psychosocial disability, people living with trauma, and respondents with chronic or degenerative conditions.

One survey respondent shared:

My daughter’s developmental delays, anxiety, and self harm would worsen, as she would not have access to essential communication, and psychosocial supports she requires to achieve her potential, gain employment and live independently as an adult. The burden for care and provision of needs supports would shift to our family which is already overstretched financially, and would further limit our family’s capacity to raise income due to increased care responsibilities.

Participants repeatedly stressed that support eligibility should remain grounded in functional impact and support need rather than treatment compliance or perceived rehabilitation potential.

Many respondents also expressed concern regarding the lack of clarity surrounding the meaning of “appropriate treatment” within the proposed framework. Participants questioned:

who determines what treatment is considered appropriate
how disagreement between clinicians may be handled
whether affordability and accessibility will be considered
how informed consent will operate in practice
what safeguards will exist for people who decline treatment. Respondents repeatedly described fears that the changes may create a system where people feel pressured to pursue interventions simply to demonstrate they are “disabled enough” to qualify for support.

Submission 268

EAC is concerned that any framework which creates direct or indirect pressure to undertake treatment in order to access essential supports risks undermining participant autonomy, dignity and informed consent.

Participants repeatedly emphasised that disability support systems should focus on enabling participation, safety and inclusion rather than assessing whether a person has pursued every possible intervention or treatment pathway.

The lack of operational detail regarding these provisions contributed significantly to participant anxiety across the survey findings. Many survey respondents stated they did not feel able to properly assess the likely consequences of the changes because key implementation details remain unclear.

6.4 Expansion of parental responsibility and reliance on unpaid care

EAC is also concerned that the Bill expressly expands the role of parental responsibility in decisions about reasonable and necessary supports for children.

EAC recommends that proposed subsections 34(1G) to 34(1J) be deleted.

The proposed subsections require the CEO to take into account a presumption that parents are responsible for providing “substantial care and support” for children. This includes supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support, behavioural support and other assistance with daily living that may be considered reasonably expected of a parent of a child of a similar age.

The provisions also prevent the CEO from being satisfied that a support should be funded where its primary or substantial purpose is to reduce burdens on parental time below what is considered reasonably expected of a parent, improve household efficiency, or give effect to a parent’s preference for supports to be provided other than by parental care.

EAC is concerned that these provisions may significantly expand the circumstances in which disability-related support needs are treated as parental responsibility rather than funded NDIS supports.

This is particularly concerning for children with complex support needs, whose requirements for supervision, emotional regulation, behavioural support, transport and personal care may be substantially greater than those of children of a similar age without disability. EAC is concerned that the proposed provisions may blur the distinction between ordinary parental care and disability-related support needs.

Submission 268

One parent shared:

My son is 37. He has CP level 5 and an intellectual disability…I’m 61. My husband died when I was 57 and I did not cope. I was working in a high pressure job (an internal review officer at ndis), and i became so dysfunctional, I couldn’t make decisions anymore. I didn’t know how. After much medical intervention, it turned out that I had audhd and was suffering badly from an autistic burnout. I ended up being medically retired with an ndis plan of my own. Now I’m working with [my son] for 54 hours, soon to be 61 hours, and I’m back in autistic burnout. My access is undoubtedly going to be cancelled. I only use it for psychology and some help in the garden as it’s so overwhelming. I need psychology, but my plan is not what concerns me. What concerns me is knowing that I can’t keep this up. And I’ll have to watch my beautiful son deteriorate and it will be on my watch. And that, well, that will kill me.

The practical effect may be to shift support responsibilities from the NDIS onto families and unpaid carers. This risk is especially acute for mothers, single parents, disabled parents, ageing carers and families in regional and remote areas where alternative services may be limited or unavailable.

Survey respondents repeatedly expressed concern that reductions in support would shift greater responsibility onto already exhausted carers and families. Many respondents described fear regarding what may happen when ageing carers can no longer continue providing unpaid support. Participants also described fears regarding institutionalisation, crisis care and unsafe living arrangements if existing supports are reduced.

One survey respondent shared their story:

I’m a 71 year old aging parent and my son’s Dad is 76 years old. Our son is 46 years old and is profoundly disabled due to cytomegalovirus in pregnancy. He has very severe cerebral palsy with all 4 limbs affected. He cannot sit up. He uses wheelchairs, hoists, shower chairs. He has very severe intellectual disability, he functions like a very young child. He is also deaf and visually impaired…The NDIS has been life changing for our family. As aging parents we were very frightened by the uncertainty for our son when we were no longer around. It was a horrible thought…I would have preferred he go first because he wouldn’t survive an emergency situation. It’s not that he would die but the lonely way with people who did not know him would be awful.

EAC recommends that proposed subsections 34(1G)-(1J) be removed or substantially amended to ensure that parental responsibility is not used to deny supports where a child’s needs arise from disability.

Submission 268

At a minimum, the Bill should be amended to make clear that:

parental responsibility must not be used to deny disability-related supports;
parents and unpaid carers must not be expected to replace funded disability supports;
decision-makers must consider the sustainability of informal care arrangements;
decision-makers must consider the impact on parents, carers, siblings and family wellbeing;
decision-makers must consider the risk of family breakdown, crisis, neglect, violence or institutionalisation if supports are not funded;
decision-makers must consider the rights of the child to participation, inclusion, development and family life.

EAC further recommends that the Government publish modelling on any expected transfer of care burden from funded supports to unpaid carers and families, including specific analysis of the impacts on women, disabled parents, single parents, ageing carers and regional families.

6.5 Alternative supports and foundational supports

The test for foundational or other supports should be their actual availability, not theoretical availability. These supports should be timely, accessible, affordable, culturally safe, geographically available and enforceable.

The proposed “alternative support” and foundational support arrangements were among the most consistently raised concerns throughout EAC’s survey. Respondents repeatedly questioned whether foundational supports currently exist at the scale, accessibility or consistency required to safely replace individualised NDIS supports.

Participants repeatedly expressed uncertainty regarding what foundational supports will actually look like in practice and whether they will provide meaningful alternatives to existing NDIS supports.

Many respondents stated they feared the changes would create a pathway for people to be diverted away from the NDIS into systems that are not adequately funded, available or accessible.

One respondent described the impact that existing supports had already made in their son’s life:

Submission 268

“He attended his 1st ever concert, learnt how to cross the road, learnt some basic cooking, hanging clothes on the line, did work experience and is now doing a course in hope to obtain some form of employment.”

The same respondent also described the impact of those supports on self-harm and wellbeing:

“He has also stopped self harm, speaking of ending his life and having a more positive attitude but that can change in a split second if his support stops.”

Another respondent stated:

“My daughter would also lose important supports that help maintain routine, independence, social connection, and community participation, increasing her isolation, dependence on family, and likelihood of emotional and behavioural escalation.”

Participants repeatedly noted that many mainstream systems are already under significant strain and often unable to meet disability-related support needs effectively.[7]

Respondents described long waitlists, workforce shortages, limited regional services and difficulty accessing public therapies and mental health supports.

EAC is particularly concerned that the Bill allows major structural changes to proceed before any replacement systems have been fully designed, fully funded, tested or independently evaluated.

Participants also repeatedly expressed concern that reduced access to individualised supports may increase pressure on unpaid carers and families.

6.6 Proposed section 34A and ministerial funding reduction powers

Every Australian Counts is deeply concerned by proposed section 34A and the broader ministerial and delegated powers relating to support determinations and funding arrangements. Proposed section 34A would allow the Minister to determine that the amount funded for specified supports is less than 100 per cent of the cost of those supports. Proposed subsection 34A(5) would allow that determination to apply even where the result is that funding for a reasonable and necessary support is less than the total cost of that support, or funding for all reasonable and necessary supports in a plan is less than their total cost.

Submission 268

This is the most dangerous provision in the Bill. It would allow the NDIS to accept that a support is reasonable and necessary while refusing to fund the support at the level required to actually purchase it. This is legislated unmet need, not financial discipline.

Under this approach, reductions to participant funding could occur without individual reassessment of reasonable and necessary supports, without proper consideration of participant safety, without assessment of functional impact, and without analysis of the likely consequences of reduced support. The Bill would allow broad reductions to be applied across categories of participants or support types, with inadequate safeguards, review rights or accountability mechanisms.

For participants, the consequences may be severe. A shortfall in funding can mean missed personal care, loss of trusted workers, cancelled therapy, reduced psychosocial support, inability to attend medical appointments, loss of community access, deterioration in health, increased restrictive practices, family breakdown, housing instability, preventable hospitalisation and crisis. For some people with disability, especially those who rely on continuous support to eat, breathe safely, communicate, avoid self-harm, move safely or access the community, these consequences may be life-threatening.

EAC is particularly concerned that section 34A would undermine the rights protected by the UNCRPD, especially Article 19 on independent living and inclusion in the community, Article 28 on adequate standard of living and social protection, Article 5 on equality and non-discrimination, Article 17 on integrity of the person, and Article 4 on close consultation with people with disability through our representative organisations.

EAC recommends that proposed section 34A be removed from the Bill. If Parliament proceeds with any version of this provision, it must be amended so that funding can never be reduced below the actual cost of reasonable and necessary supports. Any funding determination must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, Category A NDIS Rule safeguards where applicable, human rights assessment, public exposure drafts, accessible consultation and independent review.

6.7 Provider registration, commissioning and choice and control

EAC is concerned that the Bill, future NDIS Rules or related instruments could create pathways toward registered-provider-only, commissioned or block-funded support arrangements. Any such pathway would fundamentally alter the practical operation of choice and control in the NDIS.

Participants must retain the practical ability to choose who provides support, including trusted workers, sole traders, independent workers, small community providers, direct employment and services for one. For many people, the identity, training, continuity and relationship of the worker are essential to safety. This is especially true for people with complex communication needs, personal care needs, behavioural support needs,

Submission 268

psychosocial support needs, cultural safety needs, or high levels of support in the home and community.

EAC recommends that the Bill be amended to protect participant and nominee-led support arrangements in the provider definition and registration framework. If mandatory registration is expanded, a specific self-directed registration category should be established before those changes affect participants who self-manage or self-direct supports. Any restriction on participant-led arrangements should be justified, proportionate, based on individual risk, and subject to notice, reasons and review rights.

6.8 Claims, records, debts, civil penalties

EAC is concerned that the Bill may expose participants, nominees and families to debts, penalties and administrative consequences for technical or record-keeping issues, even where supports were genuinely received and claimed in good faith. This would create fear, discourage people from using flexible and individualised supports, and further damage trust in the Scheme.

The claiming window should not be reduced to a point that punishes participants for disability-related barriers, hospitalisation, technology problems, payroll corrections, nominee issues or inconsistent advice from the NDIA. Participants and nominees should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy record issues before any debt is raised.

EAC recommends a binding pre-claim advice mechanism and a statutory safe harbour where a participant, nominee or plan manager relies in good faith on written NDIA advice that a support is claimable. Claim disallowances, post-payment reversals and debts arising from disputed claims should be subject to merits review.

Automated decisions should be limited to low-risk administrative decisions. Any decision affecting funding, claims, plans, debts or participant status must involve human review, clear reasons, accessible appeal information, disclosure that automation was used, independent audit and access to merits review. The Bill should be amended to reflect this position in relation to automated decisions. 6.9 Automated decisions

The Bill should be amended to reflect this position in relation to automated decisions.

Submission 268

Survey respondents repeatedly expressed concern that the current change discussion frames “sustainability” too narrowly through the lens of financial expenditure while giving insufficient attention to the long-term social and human consequences of withdrawing support.

It appears Minister Butler is using policy on the run without realising the consequences. More businesses will close. More burden on the welfare system. More burden on the hospital system. This is failed government decision making. We are grateful to the NDIS. However the constant negativity by the government and the media has created a warped and misdirected view of what can be achieved by the NDIS. If the Labour government continue with these failed policies then the detrimental impact will be catastrophic.

Respondents consistently described the NDIS as a preventative system that reduces crisis, strengthens participation and allows people with disability to remain connected to family and community life.

The survey findings demonstrate widespread fear regarding the practical consequences of support reduction or removal. In total:

374 respondents anticipated reduced community access
371 anticipated worsening mental health
364 anticipated increased impacts on carers and families
360 anticipated reduced independence
226 anticipated increased hospital or crisis care
198 anticipated loss of work or study opportunities. These findings demonstrate that participants do not view support reduction as reducing need. Rather, respondents repeatedly described fear that unmet need may simply be transferred into already overstretched systems including hospitals, mental health services, homelessness services, aged care, emergency systems and unpaid family care.

One survey respondent said:

Like anything ‘new’ and untested/tried there is a greater scope for holes and failures; which although a part of system growth should not come at the cost of human needs. If the govt doesnt have enough money to fund these people under ndis how can they justify starting up new programs etc to support them?

Several respondents described years spent building stability, independence, communication skills, education pathways and community participation through

Submission 268

consistent support. Many feared these gains could quickly unravel if supports become harder to access or maintain.

Survey responses repeatedly emphasised that sustainability cannot be separated from the sustainability of people’s lives themselves. Respondents described the NDIS as essential to maintaining:

stable housing
family relationships
employment
parenting capacity
education
social participation
mental wellbeing
personal safety. A recurring theme throughout the survey responses was fear regarding instability and uncertainty. Many respondents stated they no longer felt confident planning for the future because they did not know whether essential supports would remain available.

Several participants also expressed concern that the changes may increase reliance on unpaid carers and family supports at a time when many families are already exhausted, financially strained and struggling to sustain existing caring arrangements.

One respondent shared:

It is nothing short of stripping away a participant’s dignity and right to choose. We feel totally let down by the government. We feel totally mis-understood by the government and we feel threatened and scared by much of what they are proposing.

Another reflected that:

It’s exhausting trying to keep up with the changes, and it’s really had an impact on my mental health.

EAC recognises the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, sustainability should not be understood solely as reducing expenditure growth or increasing administrative consistency.

A sustainable NDIS is one that enables people with disability to live safely, participate meaningfully in community life and access the supports necessary to avoid crisis, isolation and institutionalisation.

Submission 268

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026 introduces substantial changes to the operation of the NDIS, yet participants, families, advocates and representative organisations were given only a short timeframe to review and respond to highly complex legislation and explanatory materials.

Despite the scale of these changes, many respondents stated they felt they had insufficient time or information to properly understand how the proposed changes may affect them.

Survey respondents repeatedly expressed frustration that they were being asked to comment on changes without access to future NDIS Rules, functional capacity assessment methodologies, foundational support frameworks and implementation safeguards.

One respondent stated:

“They always ask us to provide proper evidence, but where is their evidence?”

Many respondents described the consultation process as inaccessible, overwhelming and difficult to navigate.

Several participants stated that they relied on advocacy organisations, summaries or social media discussions because the legislative materials themselves were too complex to interpret without specialist knowledge.

Respondents repeatedly expressed concern that the consultation process appeared rushed and predetermined. A recurring theme throughout the survey was the perception that the disability community was being consulted after key policy decisions had already been made.

Survey responses also highlighted the emotional impact of ongoing change uncertainty, including stress, exhaustion, fear and declining mental health.

EAC is particularly concerned that the pace and structure of consultation may have prevented meaningful participation from people who are already marginalised within the disability community, including people with communication barriers, regional participants, First Nations communities and people without access to advocacy support.

Accessible consultation requires more than simply opening a submission process. Meaningful engagement requires accessible information, adequate timeframes, genuine co-design and transparency regarding implementation and operational detail.

EAC believes the current process has fallen short of that standard.

Submission 268

Recommendations The recommendations below are grouped to show the logic of EAC’s position: the Bill should not proceed in its current form, and if Parliament continues with any part of it, the legislation must be substantially amended to protect rights, safety, reasonable and necessary support, choice and control, transparency and review rights.

Every Australian Counts recommends that the Committee not recommend passage of the Bill in its current form.

If the Bill proceeds, it must be substantially amended to protect the NDIS as an individualised, rights-based scheme. The following recommendations respond to EAC’s community survey findings, the human rights concerns raised in this submission, and the practical risks created by the Bill.

8.1 Priority Recommendations

Every Australian Counts recommends that the Committee not recommend passage of the Bill in its current form.

Recommendation 1: Do not pass the Bill in its current form

If the Bill proceeds, the following amendments and safeguards are essential.

Remove proposed section 34A The Bill must be amended to remove proposed section 34A. If Parliament proceeds with any version of this provision, it must state clearly that funding can never be reduced below the actual cost of reasonable and necessary supports.
Retain and strengthen participant-directed planning The Bill must retain and strengthen participant-directed planning, choice and control, supported decision-making and individualised support. Section 31 should not be repealed unless equivalent or stronger protections are inserted into the Act.
Prohibit broad caps that override individual need The Bill must prohibit broad funding caps, support intensity caps or worker-to-participant ratio caps where those caps would override individual need, safety, continuity of care or one-to-one support where required.
Protect people with high or complex support needs The Bill must protect participants with high or complex support needs from any support determination, funding reduction or cap that would create unsafe gaps in care, including people who require 24-hour support, intensive one-to-one support, complex health

Submission 268

support, behavioural support, airway management, swallowing support, psychosocial crisis support or other continuous safety supports.

Ensure foundational supports exist before NDIS access or support is reduced No person should lose access to the NDIS or NDIS-funded supports on the assumption that foundational supports, alternative supports or mainstream services will meet their needs unless those supports are fully funded, operational, accessible, timely, rights aligned and enforceable.
Remove or substantially amend parental responsibility provisions The Bill must remove or substantially amend the parental responsibility provisions so that disability-related support needs are not shifted onto parents, families or unpaid carers. Decision-makers must consider carer sustainability, family wellbeing, risk of family breakdown, crisis, neglect, violence, institutionalisation and the rights of children and families.
Protect participant-led support arrangements The Bill must protect participant and nominee-led support arrangements, including direct employment, sole traders, independent workers, culturally safe supports, small providers and services for one. Any expansion of mandatory registration must not remove practical choice and control.
Strengthen safeguards for functional capacity assessments Functional capacity assessments must be transparent, accessible, culturally safe, trauma informed and reviewable. They must recognise fluctuating conditions, psychosocial disability, autism, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, invisible disability, complex communication needs and the effect of environmental barriers.
Protect people from debts, penalties and automated decisions without fair process

The Bill must protect participants, nominees and families from debts, penalties or loss of support arising from technical or administrative errors where supports were genuinely received and claimed in good faith. Automated decision-making must be limited to low risk administrative decisions, with human review, clear reasons, disclosure, audit and merits review for any decision affecting plans, funding, claims, debts, reassessment, suspension, revocation or participant status.

10.Limit delegated legislative and ministerial powers

Major decisions affecting access, support definitions, funding levels, provider status, claiming, debts, planning, reassessment, suspension, revocation and review rights should not be left to future instruments with limited scrutiny. The Bill must require public exposure drafts, accessible consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, state and territory

Submission 268

agreement where required, co-design with people with disability and UNCRPD compatibility analysis.

The detailed recommendations below expand on these priority recommendations and identify the specific safeguards required to protect the NDIS as an individualised, rights based scheme.

8.2 Human rights, planning and assessment

Recommendation 2: Insert a UNCRPD objects and principles clause

The Bill should insert an objects and principles clause requiring all decisions, rules, legislative instruments and administrative actions under the NDIS Act to be interpreted consistently with the UNCRPD, including choice and control, independent living, accessibility, equality, equal recognition before the law, access to justice, bodily integrity, informed consent, respect for home and family, and adequate support.

Recommendation 3: Retain and strengthen participant-directed planning

The Bill should retain and strengthen the existing principles of choice and control, individualised support, participant-directed planning and supported decision-making. Section 31 should not be repealed unless equivalent or stronger protections are inserted into the Act.

8.3 Funding, caps and reasonable and necessary support

Recommendation 4: Remove proposed section 34A

Proposed amend the Bill to remove section 34A. If, contrary to our recommendation, it is to be retained, it must be significantly amended so that funding can never be reduced below the actual cost of reasonable and necessary supports. Any funding determination must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, public exposure drafts, accessible consultation and human rights assessment.

Recommendation 5: Prohibit broad funding caps that override individual need

The Bill should remove powers to impose broad funding caps, support intensity caps or worker-to-participant ratio caps where those caps would override individual need, safety, support continuity, direct employment, services for one, or one-to-one support where required.

Recommendation 6: Protect participants with high or complex support needs

The Bill should provide an automatic exemption from any support determination or cap for participants with high or complex support needs, including participants requiring 24 hour supervision, intensive one-to-one support, complex health support, behavioural

Submission 268

support, airway management, swallowing support, psychosocial crisis support or other continuous safety supports.

Recommendation 7: Protect social and community participation supports

The Bill should prevent reductions to social and community participation supports where those supports are required for safety, communication, personal care, mental health, family relationships, appointments, education, employment, volunteering, community connection or prevention of isolation and crisis.

8.4 Whole-of-person decision-making, evidence and bodily autonomy

Recommendation 8: Retain the whole-of-person approach

The Bill should delete the word “directly” from proposed section 34(1)(aa) and ensure supports can be funded where needs arise from the interaction of a participant’s eligible impairments, other impairments, environment, support context and circumstances.

Recommendation 9: Give proper weight to lived experience and treating practitioner evidence

The Bill should require decision-makers to give proper weight to lived experience evidence, participant and nominee evidence, and evidence from treating practitioners when deciding whether a support is effective, beneficial and required.

Recommendation 10: Strengthen safeguards around functional capacity assessments

Functional capacity assessments must be transparent, accessible, culturally safe, trauma informed, independently reviewed and capable of recognising fluctuating conditions, psychosocial disability, autism, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, invisible disability, complex communication needs and the effect of environmental barriers.

Recommendation 11: Remove or substantially amend “appropriate treatment” provisions

Access to the NDIS should not depend on a person undertaking treatment, intervention or behavioural programs where that treatment is unavailable, unaffordable, inaccessible, unsafe, culturally inappropriate, clinically contested, trauma-inducing or refused on the basis of informed consent. The participant’s real circumstances must be considered.

8.5 Foundational supports, unpaid care and provider choice

Recommendation 12: Ensure foundational supports exist before any reduction in NDIS access or support

Submission 268

No person should lose access to the NDIS or NDIS-funded supports on the assumption that foundational supports, alternative supports or mainstream systems will meet their needs unless those supports are fully funded, operational, accessible, rights-aligned and enforceable.

Recommendation 13: Do not exclude people because another system exists in theory

Recommendation 14: Remove or substantially amend parental responsibility provisions

Proposed subsections 34(1G) to 34(1J) should be deleted or substantially amended so that parental responsibility, family responsibility or unpaid care is not used to refuse disability-related supports. The Bill should consider carer sustainability, risk of family breakdown, crisis, neglect, violence, institutionalisation and the rights of children and families.

Recommendation 15: Protect choice and control in provider arrangements

The Bill should protect participant and nominee-led support arrangements in the provider definition and registration framework, including direct employment, sole traders, independent workers, culturally safe supports, small providers and services for one.

Recommendation 16: Require a self-directed registration category before expanding mandatory registration

If mandatory registration is expanded, a specific self-directed registration category should be established before those changes affect people who self-manage or self-direct supports. It must be co-designed with participants and must not impose provider-style obligations on people with disability and families directly arranging supports in our own lives.

Recommendation 17: Prevent registered-provider-only, commissioned or block funded arrangements that remove choice

Future rules, commissioning arrangements or block-funded models must not remove or substantially restrict a participant’s practical ability to choose and control supports. Any restriction must be justified, proportionate, based on individual circumstances and subject to notice, reasons and review rights.

Submission 268

8.6 Claims, debts, automation and review rights

Recommendation 18: Retain a fair claiming window

The Bill should retain a fair claiming window of at least six months, with broad reasonable-excuse protections for late claims linked to disability, illness, hospitalisation, accessibility barriers, nominee issues, technology failure, payroll corrections or other reasonable circumstances.

Recommendation 19: Protect people from debts caused by technical or administrative errors

A debt should not be raised solely because of a technical or administrative record-keeping failure where supports were genuinely received and claimed in good faith. The NDIA should be required to give participants and nominees a reasonable opportunity to remedy record issues and to consider disability-related barriers, accessibility issues and inconsistent NDIA advice.

Recommendation 20: Create binding pre-claim advice and safe harbour protections

Participants, nominees and plan managers should be able to obtain written, binding advice about whether a support is claimable before spending funds. A statutory safe harbour should protect people who rely in good faith on written NDIA advice that a support is claimable.

Recommendation 21: Provide merits review for disputed claims and debts

Claim disallowances, post-payment claim reversals and debts arising from disputed claims should be subject to accessible internal review and independent merits review.

Recommendation 22: Protect unpaid nominees from disproportionate penalties

Nominee civil penalty provisions should be removed or substantially amended so unpaid family nominees acting in good faith are protected by a reasonable-steps defence and are not exposed to disproportionate penalties.

Recommendation 23: Limit automated decision-making

Automated decision-making should be limited to low-risk administrative decisions. Any decision affecting funding, claims, plans, debts, reassessment, suspension, revocation or participant status must require human review, clear reasons, disclosure that automation was used, accessible appeal information, independent audit and merits review.

8.7 Reassessment, suspension, delegated powers & implementation

Recommendation 24: Restore timely reassessment safeguards

Submission 268

The Bill should retain the 21-day decision timeframe for unscheduled reassessment requests, restore the deemed decision safety net, and remove narrow requirements that prevent timely reassessment when support needs, informal supports, housing, employment, health, safety or living arrangements change.

Recommendation 25: Create an emergency reassessment pathway

The Bill should insert an emergency reassessment pathway with a statutory 14-day timeframe where the participant, nominee or treating practitioner identifies urgent safety, housing, health, behavioural, psychosocial or support-breakdown risk.

Recommendation 26: Protect participants during automatic plan renewal

Automatic plan renewal provisions must not remove, reduce or alter support funding without participant involvement, written reasons and review rights. One-off funding that has been quoted, ordered or otherwise actioned should carry over until the support is delivered and claimed.

Recommendation 27: Strengthen safeguards before plan suspension or revocation

The Bill should require accessible communication, contact through all available channels, contact with nominees or authorised supporters, consideration of disability-related barriers, hospitalisation, homelessness, family violence, psychosocial crisis and other protected circumstances, and urgent reinstatement pathways before plan suspension or revocation.

Recommendation 28: Limit delegated legislative and ministerial powers

Major decisions affecting access, support definitions, funding levels, provider status, claiming, debts, planning, reassessment, suspension, revocation and review rights should not be left to future instruments with limited scrutiny. The Bill should require Category A NDIS Rule safeguards where appropriate, public exposure drafts, parliamentary scrutiny, state and territory agreement where required, and UNCRPD compatibility analysis.

Recommendation 29: Require genuine co-design and community oversight

All future rules, transitional arrangements and implementation measures must be co designed with people with disability, Disabled People’s Organisations, advocacy organisations, families, carers, self managers, people who self-direct supports, First Nations communities, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with psychosocial disability and people with complex support needs.

Submission 268

These findings reflect both the depth of concern and the perceived seriousness of the Bill. Their concern goes beyond administrative change. They foresee loss of support, loss of safety, loss of autonomy, increased pressure on unpaid carers, greater isolation, and the prospect of being pushed into crisis systems that are already unable to meet need.

EAC recognises that the NDIS, like all major public systems, must continue to improve over time. But improvement cannot be achieved by reducing enforceable rights, creating planned unmet need, shifting responsibility onto families, placing more power in future rules, or weakening the practical ability of people with disability to choose and control our supports.

Across the survey responses, people with disability, families, carers and supporters repeatedly warned that the Bill risks undermining the original promise of the NDIS. Many respondents emphasised that reducing support in one system does not remove need. It transfers risk to hospitals, mental health services, homelessness services, aged care, child protection, families and the person with disability themselves.

The Committee should treat these findings with the seriousness they deserve. If passed without major amendments, the Bill could produce severe and foreseeable harm, including preventable hospitalisation, deterioration in health and mental health, family breakdown, unsafe living arrangements, institutionalisation and life-threatening gaps in support.

EAC urges the Committee not to recommend passage of the Bill in its current form. At a minimum, the Bill must be substantially amended to protect reasonable and necessary support, participant-directed planning, choice and control, access to justice, bodily autonomy, family life, community inclusion, and the rights of people with disability and our families under the UNCRPD.

People with disability must remain at the centre of decisions affecting our lives. The NDIS must remain an individualised, rights-based scheme that supports people to live safely, independently and with dignity in the community.

Table of Contents

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the National Disability Insurance

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Bill

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

8.1 Priority Recommendations