EAC assesses Government amendments to the NDIS Bill (Individual advocacy)

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Supplementary submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation

Committee

Revised draft – July 2026

This submission supplements Every Australian Counts’ June 2026 submission and responds to the Government amendments and further information made available since that submission.

Page 1 of 10

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

1. Purpose and status of this supplementary submission Every Australian Counts (EAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide this supplementary submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. It should be read together with EAC’s original submission on the Bill, lodged in June 2026. Since EAC lodged its original submission, the Government has indicated that amendments will be made to aspects of the Bill and further information has emerged about the evidence and modelling supporting the proposed reforms. EAC acknowledges the changes that respond to community concerns. However, the amendments identified to date do not resolve the central risks raised in EAC’s original submission or in its proposed amendment briefing. This supplementary submission therefore:

• assesses the Government amendments currently identified and whether they address EAC’s earlier concerns;

• incorporates EAC’s approved amendment priorities into a consolidated position for the Committee;

• responds to the revised Impact Analysis for the Supported Capacity and Capability Program (SCCP);

• identifies the concerns that remain unresolved; and

• sets out the minimum amendments and safeguards required before the Bill could safely proceed. Because the final form of all Government amendments may continue to change, EAC asks the Committee to assess the final amendment sheet against the principles and recommendations in this submission. Any further amendments should be published in accessible form with sufficient time for scrutiny by people with disability and their representative organisations.

2. EAC’s updated overall position EAC’s core position remains that the Bill should not pass in its current form. The Bill makes major structural changes to NDIS access, planning, support determination, reassessment, delegated powers, evidence requirements, provider arrangements, debts, penalties and review rights. These changes are being advanced before key Rules, assessment tools, implementation frameworks and replacement supports are available for scrutiny. EAC supports a sustainable, fair and effective NDIS. Sustainability cannot be achieved by creating unmet need, shifting costs to families and state systems, or weakening enforceable rights. Reform must be properly sequenced, transparent, co-designed, evidence-based and safe. The Government amendments identified to date are welcome where they remove or narrow harmful provisions. However, they do not alter EAC’s conclusion that substantial redrafting is required. In particular, the Bill continues to permit population-level funding controls, weaken participant-directed planning, create broad assessment and treatment-related powers, rely on systems that are not yet operational, and leave critical matters to delegated legislation. Recommendation 1: The Committee should recommend that the Bill not be passed in its current form and that it be substantially redrafted following publication of the key Rules, assessment tools, impact modelling and implementation safeguards.

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

3. Assessment of the Government amendments 3.1 Removal of the “other treatment” drafting in items 13 and 14 EAC welcomes the Government’s decision to remove the drafting relating to “other treatment” in items 13 and 14. The original drafting risked reversing the evidentiary burden by requiring people to demonstrate that they had pursued, or could not reasonably pursue, a wider range of treatment options before their impairment could be treated as permanent. Removing this wording is a meaningful improvement. It responds to concerns about coercive treatment expectations, reverse means-testing, bodily autonomy and the disproportionate effect on people who cannot access treatment because of cost, geography, waitlists, trauma, clinical risk, cultural safety or limited specialist availability. However, the amendment does not fully resolve the treatment issue. Proposed section 25A and the remaining permanence provisions still require close scrutiny. The legislation must not create an ongoing expectation that a person undertake treatment merely because it exists in theory, where it is not clinically appropriate, reasonably available, financially accessible, culturally safe or acceptable to the person through free and informed consent. The Act should recognise that permanence and treatment are not mutually exclusive. A person may have a lifelong or permanent disability and continue to receive treatment that improves health, prevents deterioration, supports recovery or increases participation. Treatment should not become an ongoing barrier to access or continued eligibility. Recommendation 2: Amend proposed section 25A and related provisions so a treatment is relevant only where it is evidence-based, clinically appropriate for the individual, reasonably available, financially accessible and capable of materially and sustainably reducing the person’s disability-related support needs. A person’s reasonable decision not to undertake treatment must not, by itself, prevent access to the NDIS.

3.2 Restrictive-practice amendments EAC understands that Government amendments also clarify references to authorised and unauthorised restrictive practices. Any clarification that strengthens the distinction between lawful authorisation and unlawful or unauthorised practice is supported in principle. However, restrictive-practice provisions must not normalise restrictive practices, allow funding or planning decisions to assume their continued use, or weaken the obligation to reduce and eliminate restrictive practices. The final drafting should be tested against the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Disability Royal Commission recommendations and the rights to liberty, bodily integrity, autonomy and freedom from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Recommendation 3: Ensure the final restrictive-practice amendments preserve the objective of reducing and eliminating restrictive practices, do not permit unauthorised practices to be treated as ordinary supports, and require safeguards, reporting, review and independent oversight.

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

3.3 What the Government amendments do not address The identified amendments are limited and do not resolve most of the issues raised in EAC’s original submission and proposed amendment briefing. The following matters remain substantially unresolved:

• proposed section 34A and the power to fund reasonable and necessary supports below their assessed cost;

• funding, intensity, frequency, duration and worker-to-participant ratio caps under proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB);

• repeal of section 31 and the weakening of participant-directed planning;

• the functional capacity framework in proposed section 9B and the absence of a validated assessment methodology;

• the impairment-by-impairment or “directly arise” approach to supports;

• diversion to alternative or foundational supports before those systems are funded, accessible and enforceable;

• expanded reliance on informal supports and parental responsibility;

• rigid value-for-money and evidence hierarchy provisions;

• reassessment, plan renewal, suspension and revocation safeguards;

• automated decision-making and the need for human review and reasons;

• debts, record-keeping obligations and civil penalties for people acting in good faith;

• provider registration and risks to self-management and participant-led support arrangements;

• broad delegated powers, including transitional powers capable of modifying the operation of primary legislation; and

• the absence of statutory co-design, gender impact assessment, CRPD compliance and independent harm monitoring.

4. Updated Impact Analysis and the SCCP changes Since EAC lodged its original submission, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has updated the Impact Analysis supporting the Bill. The revisions materially change the estimated reach and impact of proposed changes to the Supported Capacity and Capability Program (SCCP). The updated analysis substantially increases the reported proportion of participants across several disability cohorts who currently receive SCCP funding. For example, the proportion of participants with acquired brain injury receiving SCCP funding was revised from 21 per cent to 90 per cent. Similar material revisions were made for autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, psychosocial disability and other cohorts. These are not minor statistical corrections. They change the scale of the proposed policy and the number of people potentially affected by funding reductions. Where substantially more participants rely on SCCP supports than was originally presented, Parliament cannot confidently assess safety, equality, cost-shifting or human rights impacts without revised modelling. The Committee should seek clear answers about when the errors were identified, why the corrections were made without a full public explanation, whether Ministers relied on the earlier data when introducing the Bill, and whether the revised figures alter the assumptions underpinning the savings estimates.

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

Recommendation 4: Require publication of the complete revised SCCP modelling, including cohort-level impacts, distributional effects, safety risks, gender impacts, cost-shifting and the assumptions supporting the claimed savings, before the Bill proceeds.

5. Transparency, fraud claims and evidence supporting the Bill The updated Impact Analysis also narrows one of the Government’s central claims about fraud. The revised material indicates that fewer than 400 participants and referrers were identified as being at potential risk of non-compliance, rather than the 900 participants and referrers previously cited. EAC supports strong, proportionate action against fraud, exploitation and provider misconduct. However, reforms of this magnitude must be supported by accurate evidence. A small or revised group identified as being at potential risk of non-compliance cannot justify broad reductions to lawful supports, weakened participant rights or population-level funding controls. The distinction between suspected fraud, administrative error, poor record-keeping, disputed eligibility and proven wrongdoing must be maintained. Integrity measures should be targeted at misconduct and should not impose punitive consequences on participants, nominees, families or quality providers acting in good faith. Recommendation 5: Require the Government to publish a complete change log for the Impact Analysis, explain any altered policy or financial assumptions, and distinguish clearly between proven fraud, suspected non-compliance, administrative error and lawful claiming behaviour.

6. Consolidated priority amendments The Government amendments should be assessed against the full set of changes required to make the Bill safe, rights-aligned and workable. EAC’s priority amendments are consolidated below.

6.1 Sequencing and commencement safeguards The Bill would restrict access, supports and reassessment arrangements before foundational supports and relevant mainstream alternatives are fully operational. This is the wrong sequence. People must not lose individualised NDIS support in reliance on programs that do not exist, are not sufficiently funded, have long waiting lists or do not provide enforceable entitlements. Recommendation 6: Insert a statutory commencement condition preventing access restrictions, support reductions, cohort reassessments or diversion from the NDIS until relevant foundational and mainstream supports are funded, operational, accessible, timely, rights-aligned and independently verified as capable of meeting need.

6.2 Remove the support reduction power and funding caps Proposed section 34A would allow funding for reasonable and necessary supports to be reduced below their actual cost. Proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB) would permit maximum funding, intensity, frequency, duration and worker-to-participant ratios. These powers are inconsistent with an individualised insurance scheme where support is determined by assessed need.

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

In plain terms, these powers allow a Minister to decide that certain people, or people using certain supports, can only receive support up to a particular funding amount, for a particular number of hours, or at a particular staffing ratio. This could apply to participants generally or to a class of participants. It is a broad Ministerial power, not an individualised planning decision. For people with high and complex support needs, support intensity and worker-to-participant ratios determine whether life at home and in community is safe and possible. One-to-one and two-to-one support are not luxuries. They are often the level of support required for personal care, communication, mobility, behaviour support, health needs, safe community participation and worker safety. A broad cap cannot properly account for the individual circumstances of every participant affected by it. Advice to the Minister may consider safety at a general or cohort level, but it cannot know whether a particular person needs 1:1 or 2:1 support to remain safely in their own home, avoid crisis, maintain employment or education, or protect themselves and their workers from harm. For this reason, a requirement to “have regard to participant safety” is not sufficient. It may require safety to be considered, but it does not create a hard legal protection against unsafe outcomes for individuals. It does not prevent a cap from applying to a person whose circumstances make that cap unsafe, inappropriate or incompatible with their assessed support needs. This is especially serious for people who have experienced violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation in group homes, institutions or shared support settings. For some people, living alone or in a carefully chosen arrangement with individualised support is not a lifestyle preference. It is a safeguarding need. A cap on support intensity or worker-to-participant ratios could make a person’s current safe arrangement impossible to maintain and pressure them back into group-based, congregate or institutional models where they may be retraumatised or exposed to harm. The risk is not only how the current Minister may intend to use this power. Once enacted, the power would remain in the NDIS Act and be available to future Ministers. Without clear statutory limits, a future Minister could use it to impose blunt caps, restrict 1:1 or 2:1 supports, reduce individualised arrangements, push people towards group-based models, and create unmet need that shifts risk to families, workers, hospitals, housing systems, crisis services and state and territory governments. EAC is concerned that proposed section 33(2EA), together with proposed section 34A, marks a shift away from an individualised, rights-based scheme and towards centralised Ministerial control over what supports people can receive. The NDIS was created to move away from rationed, block-funded, one-size-fits-all models. These provisions risk taking the Scheme back in that direction. Recommendation 7: Delete proposed section 34A and proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB). At minimum, prohibit any determination that reduces funding below what is reasonable and necessary for the individual.

6.4 Retain participant-directed planning The repeal of section 31 is not a technical change. It removes the clearest statutory expression of participant-directed planning and weakens choice and control at the same time that the Bill expands standardised, automated and ministerial decision-making. Recommendation 9: Delete item 66 of Part 6 of Schedule 1 so section 31 remains in the NDIS Act, and strengthen the Act to require accessible communication, supported decision

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

making, cultural safety, trauma-informed practice and genuine participant involvement in planning decisions.

6.5 Functional capacity and access Proposed section 9B is being legislated before the assessment methodology has been independently validated. Functional capacity cannot be reduced to a narrow clinical snapshot. It must account for environmental, social, geographic and personal factors, fluctuating disability, fatigue, distress, deterioration, the effect of existing supports and the personal cost of functioning. Recommendation 10: Delete or substantially redraft proposed section 9B. Do not commence a functional capacity access framework until it has been independently demonstrated to be fair, reliable and equitable across disability cohorts, with transparent tools, qualified assessors, access to reports, rights to provide evidence, merits review and independent assessment in contested cases.

6.6 Whole-of-person support and alternative systems Participants live as whole people, not as separate impairments. A “directly arise” test risks excluding supports that are necessary because of the interaction between impairments, environment, health, communication, trauma and daily life. Similarly, the existence of another service system does not mean that system is available or legally responsible for meeting a person’s needs. Recommendation 11: Remove the impairment-by-impairment “directly arise” requirements and retain whole-of-person decision-making. Delete or tightly constrain proposed section 25B so a person cannot be diverted unless the alternative system is legally responsible, actually available, accessible, timely and capable of meeting the person’s support needs.

6.7 Informal supports, parental responsibility and gender impact The Bill risks transferring disability-related support needs to parents, families and unpaid carers. This will have a disproportionate effect on women, disabled parents, single parents, ageing carers, culturally diverse families and people in regional and remote communities. Informal support must not be treated as an unlimited substitute for funded disability support. Recommendation 12: Remove informal supports from the reasonable and necessary test, or substantially redraft the relevant provisions to prevent unsafe assumptions about unpaid care. Require a Gender Impact Assessment and mitigation plan before commencement and for all major Rules.

6.8 Review rights, automation, reassessment and communication No person should lose access, support or review rights because of an automated decision, inaccessible communication, non-contact, a missed deadline or an outdated automatically renewed plan. High-impact decisions require accountable human judgment, reasons and effective merits review. Recommendation 13: Limit automated decision-making to low-risk administrative matters. Guarantee human consideration, accessible reasons, disclosure, audit and merits review for decisions affecting access, plans, funding, claims, debts, reassessment, suspension or

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

revocation. Preserve participant-requested reassessment rights and require accessible contact and risk assessment before suspension or revocation.

6.9 Debts, penalties, providers and regulation Integrity measures should target deliberate misconduct without punishing people for disability-related barriers, technical errors or reasonable administrative failures. Provider regulation should be proportionate to risk and preserve self-management, direct employment, sole traders, independent workers, culturally safe supports and services for one. Recommendation 14: Protect participants, nominees and families from debts and civil penalties where supports were received and claims were made in good faith. Make debt decisions reviewable, provide reasonable-excuse and safe-harbour protections, and keep regulatory and civil remedy powers with an independent safeguarding regulator rather than expanding the NDIA’s conflicting roles.

6.10 Delegated powers, co-governance and parliamentary scrutiny Major decisions about eligibility, funding, assessment, support reductions and alternative systems should not be left to future instruments with limited scrutiny. The NDIS is a shared national scheme and people with disability must be actively involved in decisions that affect them. Recommendation 15: Require all major Rules and instruments to be Category A Rules subject to state and territory agreement, public exposure drafts, CRPD Article 4(3) compliant co-design, participant and human rights impact analysis, Joint Standing Committee scrutiny and meaningful disallowance. Delete the Schedule 5 transitional Henry VIII powers.

7. Summary assessment of earlier EAC amendments Effect of identified EAC amendment priority EAC’s current position Government amendments

   Remove “other treatment” burden Partly addressed through removal of Welcome, but remaining permanence and

wording in items 13 and 14. treatment provisions still require substantial amendment.

Delete s 3) support reduction       Not addressed.                          Retain as a priority amendment.

powers

Delete and 33(2EA) funding caps,    Not addressed.                          Retain as a priority amendment.

intensity and ratio caps

Retain s 31 participant-directed     Not addressed.                          Retain as a priority amendment.

planning

Redraft functional capacity         Not addressed.                           Retain; independent validation must precede

framework commencement.

Protect whole-of-person supports   Not addressed.                          Retain as a priority amendment.

Prevent diversion to unavailable     Not addressed.                          Retain with a hard sequencing safeguard.

systems

Protect against unsafe unpaid-      Not addressed.                          Retain and add a mandatory gender impact

care assumptions assessment.

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

Automation, review and           Not adequately addressed.               Retain as essential procedural fairness

communication safeguards safeguards.

Debts, penalties and good-faith     Not addressed.                          Retain as a priority amendment.

protections

CRPD co-design, Category A Rules  Not addressed.                          Retain and strengthen.

and oversight

Restrictive-practice clarification      Partly addressed by announced drafting   Support only where the final text strengthens

changes. elimination, safeguards and independent oversight.

8. Information the Committee should require before reporting The Committee should not be required to assess the Bill on incomplete or changing information. Before reporting, it should obtain and publish in accessible form:

• the final Government amendment sheet and a clause-by-clause explanation of how each amendment responds to inquiry evidence;

• a complete change log and corrected version of the Impact Analysis;

• revised SCCP cohort modelling and the effect on estimated savings;

• the proposed functional capacity domains, assessment methodology, validation evidence and review arrangements;

• exposure drafts of major Rules and support determination instruments;

• a sequencing and implementation plan for foundational and mainstream supports;

• a CRPD compatibility analysis, participant impact assessment and Gender Impact Assessment;

• cost-shifting analysis covering health, mental health, housing, education, justice, child protection, aged care and unpaid carers;

• safety and harm monitoring arrangements, including independent oversight and public reporting; and

• clear confirmation of which decisions will be automated and the human review and merits review safeguards that will apply. Recommendation 16: The Committee should seek the above information and allow people with disability and representative organisations a reasonable opportunity to respond before final recommendations are made.

9. Conclusion EAC recognises that the Government has made some improvements in response to community feedback. These changes are not sufficient to make the Bill safe or rights-aligned. The central architecture remains: broad ministerial and delegated powers, funding reductions and caps, weakened participant directed planning, untested functional capacity arrangements, reliance on future systems, increased pressure on unpaid carers and inadequate protections for review, communication and human decision making. The revised Impact Analysis reinforces the need for caution. Material corrections to the estimated reach of SCCP supports and changes to fraud-related claims raise serious questions about the evidence used to design and justify the Bill. Parliament should not legislate first and seek accurate modelling, operational detail and safeguards later.

Submission 268 - Supplementary Submission

Every Australian Counts | Supplementary submission | July 2026

The NDIS must remain an individualised, rights-based scheme that enables people with disability to live ordinary lives with choice and control. Reform should improve outcomes, integrity and sustainability without creating legislated unmet need or transferring risk to people with disability, families and already stretched public systems. EAC therefore urges the Committee to recommend that the Bill not pass in its current form. If the Bill proceeds, the minimum amendment package in this submission should be adopted before passage, with commencement conditional on evidence, readiness, co-design and enforceable safeguards.