Submission 273
Response to National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted to community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
June 2026
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 273
About Queenslanders with Disability Network
(QDN)
Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN) is an organisation of, for, and with people with disability. QDN operates a state-wide network of 3,000+ members and supporters who provide information, feedback and views based on their lived experience, which inform the organisation’s systemic advocacy activities. QDN has worked with members around the NDIS for over 10 years since its introduction and has been actively involved in the design and formation prior. QDN’s work is focused on the rights and full social and economic inclusion of people with disability, along with areas of key importance identified by Queenslanders with disability, including national systems: NDIS and mainstream services that people with disability rely on every day, including health, housing, employment and transport.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is making a difference in the lives of 90,000 Queenslanders with disability. Queenslanders with disability, their families and supporters have worked together for over a decade to ensure that they can access the supports they need to live their day-to day life.
While QDN acknowledge the positive impacts of the NDIS and other systems, we are deeply concerned that the current NDIS reforms that have been announced will remove benefits being delivered to Queenslanders with disability, their families and supporters through the Scheme. In this submission, we outline our specific concerns with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 which was tabled in Parliament on 14 May and referenced in the Federal Budget delivered two days prior.
Introduction
Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the
Community Affairs Legislation Committee about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill).
QDN hosted a forum for our members on 21 May, to hear their concerns about the Bill and broader reform announcements made during a National Press Club address by Minister for Health and Ageing, Hon. Mark Butler on 22 April, informing this submission.
QDN understands that reform is necessary to improve systems and ensure that supports that are delivered are done in a way that ensures safety and quality service provision. However, we are opposed to any reform measures which cause Queenslanders with disability to lose vital supports and access to community, particularly without the receiving systems being codesigned and user-tested to demonstrate that they will meet the needs of all people with disability.
QDN notes that there has been a lack of consultation with State/Territory governments and relevant key stakeholders on the Bill which has made it very difficult to fully understand the proposed changes and how they will be implemented across Queensland. This is of particular importance due to the decentralised nature of Queensland and the key impacts and needs across the diverse rural, regional and remote communities who will be impacted by the changes proposed in this Bill.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 2Submission 273
QDN also notes that the 14-day consultation period provided for this Bill is inadequate for the accessibility and communication needs of many members with disability. The Australian Government
Guide to Policy Impact
Analysis recommends a minimum of 30 days for an effective consultation.
Discussion
The following sections of this submission primarily focussed on Schedule 1 - Access and Planning Measure of the Bill.
- Eligibility and Access This section covers Schedule 1, Parts 1, 8 and 9 which cover the details relating to tightened eligibility and access requirements. QDN is specifically concerned about eligibility tightening requirements alongside restrictions in access.
The cumulative impact of the eligibility restrictions in Parts 1, 8 and 9 is significant. At a press conference on 26 April 2026, Minister for Health and Ageing, Hon. Mark Butler stated that ‘this is our initial modelling’ when asked whether 160,000 represented a rough top end of participants who will come off the Scheme, adding that ’ultimately that number depends on the tool that is agreed by state and territory governments, and co-designed with the disability community.’ QDN notes that neither the tool nor the codesign process has been finalised, yet the Bill is proceeding. Given the cumulative and interacting effect of Parts 1, 8 and 9 operating together, the number of participants impacted could be greater than initial modelling suggests.
QDN members provided feedback on their concerns on eligibility and access noting that they didn’t understand how the assessments would work and what would and wouldn’t be captured by the assessments. This led to QDN members expressing fear about what would be required of them.
1.1 Functional capacity thresholds (Part 1)
Schedule 1, Part 1 introduces a formal definition and threshold assessment for substantially reduced functional capacity. While QDN acknowledges the intent to improve consistency in decision making, significant concerns remain about how this framework will operate in practice.
Functional capacity thresholds will be set by NDIS rules rather than the Act itself, meaning they can be changed by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament is being asked to approve a framework without knowing its content.
The EM acknowledges that ‘further work is required to identify appropriate functional capacity assessments which can be used to assess functional capacity in the NDIS access process’ (p.14). The NDIA has since confirmed Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN) version 6 as the intended tool from mid-2026, while simultaneously acknowledging they will need to work with the University of Melbourne and Centre for Disability Studies to ‘use and modify the tool to ensure it is fit-for-purpose within the scheme’ (NDIA, 25 September 2025). No equivalent assessment pathway has been identified for participants under 16.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 3Submission 273
QDN members also noted that feedback from people who have participated in the trials report concerns about the accessibility of tools for different cohorts. QDN members have raised the critical need for an ability to be able to review decisions based upon the outcomes of the assessments where there is human and AI error. For example, instead of having yes or no questions related to the ability to perform tasks independently, one member who is blind, was given an assessment document which used a sliding scale which was incompatible with their screen reader technology. This denied the member an opportunity to properly review their own assessment.
That the Bill is being introduced before these types of issues have been finalised is concerning the QDN and risks adding anxiety to many of our members who will be part of the first tranche to go through this process.
Volume 9 of the Disability Royal Commission also identified the lack of culturally appropriate assessment for First Nations people with disability at present; I-CAN requires validation for cultural appropriateness. This is compounded by evidence described in the NDIS Review (Alternative Commissioning Paper for Remote and First Nations Communities) that core supports markets in remote communities are 7-10 times more concentrated than non-remote areas, meaning a standardised functional capacity threshold will operate inequitably depending on where a person lives.
Parliament is being asked to legislate a threshold framework built on a tool the Government has not demonstrated is valid across the full range of disability types in the Scheme.
Recommendation 1: The Australian Government directs the NDIA to conduct independent validity and reliability testing of I-CAN v6 across all disability cohorts in the Scheme and cultural appropriateness validation before implementation, demonstrating that it is accessible and fit-for-purpose for all disability types and First Nations people with disability.
Recommendation 2: The Australian Government ensures functional capacity thresholds are set by the NDIS Act rather than the NDIS Rules, to enable Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
1.2 Treatment exhaustion and the permanence test (Part 8)
Schedule 1, Part 8 addresses the test of permanence, with the EM explaining an intent to ‘provide a clear definition of permanence including what constitutes appropriate treatment’ (p.61). A concerning insertion after subsection 25(1A) includes criterion around seeking treatment: ‘a) the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for the impairment or impairments (if any); b) any other treatment is unlikely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact of, the impairment or impairments; and c) the impairment or impairments are likely to persist for the person’s lifetime’ (Bill, p.35). This fails to acknowledge any serious adverse side effects that may arise from alternative treatments, which may make pursuit of that treatment clinically inappropriate or harmful. The equivalent test is inserted into section 24(5) for the disability requirements.
New section 25A further clarifies that treatment must be evidence-based with the provision that follows: ‘treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. Note: A person’s individual circumstances include the person’s financial circumstances and geographical location.’
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 4Submission 273
The change not to consider individual circumstances is contrary to the evidence found in Volume 9 of the Disability Royal Commission, that geographic and cultural inaccessibility of mainstream treatment in remote communities is a structural barrier for First Nations people with disability.
QDN members highlighted that exhausting all options before being able to access the NDIS could vary across different areas, with rural, regional and remote areas more likely to have fewer available services compared to people with disability in metro areas. Members also raised that there is no clear safeguards about what treatments will be included in appropriate treatment, QDN members raised concerns based upon the fact the we currently operate in a system where different academic and medical professionals identify certain treatments for people with autism and people with psychosocial disability that do not have broad acceptance of their efficacy nor their alignment with people’s human rights. Members raised that without this clear determination, this could be very subjective and potentially see this open to the interpretation of the individual practitioner. Members believe the Bill in its current form has failed to consider these differences between locations as well as ability to pay for expensive treatments on fixed income/pensions, particularly in a largely decentralised state like Queensland. Members identified that this will add further stress and burden to people with disability as well as their families and carers if they are forced to travel large distances in the name of exhausting all possible treatments.
Further, the notion of exhausting alternative treatment options is in tension with the established common law right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment, confirmed by the Australian Law Reform Commission in their report Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws (p.282), which reflects Article 17 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which protects the right to physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others. The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights (2nd edition, 2019) also affirms the right to make informed decisions about treatment, including clear information about the possible benefits and risks of different tests and treatments. There is an alignment between the CRPD and the Charter of Healthcare Rights that are at odds with the Bill in its current form.
There is a compounding interaction between Parts 1 and 8: a person must demonstrate both substantially reduced functional capacity and that their impairment is permanent and untreatable. The EM does not acknowledge this cumulative impact, which creates a significantly more restrictive gateway than either threshold alone. This will materially affect people with fluctuating support needs and people with degenerative disability.
Recommendation 3: The Australian Government does not proceed with a requirement for alternative treatments without appropriate safeguarding in relation to medication or treatment side effects and surgical complication risks, nor without allowance for financial or geographical barriers to receiving treatment.
1.3 Alternative service eligibility (Part 9)
Under Schedule 1, Part 9, NDIS eligibility will be tightened, to be contingent on whether another service system can meet the person’s needs instead of NDIS.
It is unclear what this means for participants with multiple disabilities, where a primary impairment is deemed eligible under the NDIS. It is not clear whether other systems will then be expected to support additional impairments that are not deemed eligible for NDIS, or whether those systems have the capacity or mandate to do so.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 5Submission 273
The timeline provided by Government states that social and community participation and capacity building funding will be cut from 1 October 2026, when phased rollout of Thriving Kids rolls out, with national implementation completed by 1 January 2028. It is unclear when broader Foundational Supports will be available as a receiving system for needs. Part 9 should not operate as a live eligibility exclusion until alternative systems are demonstrably available, funded and operational across all jurisdictions and geographic areas.
Considering existing alternative systems outside the Foundational Supports framework, the Government’s own commissioned report, Analysis of Unmet Need for Psychosocial Supports Outside of the NDIS found 493,600 people had unmet need for psychosocial supports after NDIS access and existing Commonwealth, State and Territory programs were counted (p.76). For Queensland, there are 92,010 people in this category (p.81). This challenges the premise that alternative systems can meet displaced need when participants exit the Scheme.
Many QDN members expressed concern about the proposed changes to social and community participation and capacity building funding and what would happen if alternative supports were not in place. Members expressed concern that flow on affect for families and carers to provide unpaid informal supports that would impact their ability to engage in employment. One member also noted the risk of these changes to their volunteer work which is quite expansive and includes ongoing consultation and engagement with local government and business stakeholders in their home town. The loss of social and community participation and capacity building funding would potentially mean having to reduce this important role that they have in their community, contributing and being part to their community. .
Recommendation 4: The Australian Government must not proceed with any eligibility exclusion under Part 9 until the receiving systems are codesigned, tested and able to demonstrably show that they will sufficiently meet the needs of all people with disability.
Recommendation 5: The Australian Government prepare a readiness assessment of alternative systems before implementing exclusions under Part 9 of the Bill. Without this readiness there is a risk that many people will lose their support, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas.
- Support Assessment and Adequacy This section covers Schedule 1, Parts 3 and 6, which explores the core of what gets funded by the NDIS once a person is eligible for the Scheme. QDN wants to ensure that assessment tools are appropriate for their purpose and sufficient for use across all types of disabilities.
2.1 Single eligible impairment and removal of whole-of-person assessment (Part 3)
This section relates to people with disability who are already in the Scheme. While Part 8 restricts access to the Scheme by excluding individual circumstances from the eligibility test, Part 3 restricts the adequacy of support for those already in the Scheme by removing whole-of-person assessment and requiring supports to be linked to a single eligible impairment rather than a person’s full lived experience.
The EM explains that ‘the purpose of these amendments is to clarify that where multiple impairments or comorbidities exist, only the support needs arising from impairments for which the participant meets the disability or early intervention requirements are eligible for NDIS funding’ (p.24). In fact, the Bill
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 6Submission 273
makes this explicit by removing the note that acknowledges environmental factors and other ineligible impairments can affect support needs.
This directly contradicts the Final Report of the NDIS Review: ‘The new participant pathway should feature a more structured way to gather information about the participant, their circumstances and their support needs. The new process would feature a consistent needs-based assessment process to set budgets at a whole-of-person level. The budget should be based primarily on support needs and intensity, rather than functional impairments’ (p.88) recommending in Action 3.3: ‘The National Disability Insurance Agency should change the basis for setting a budget to a whole-of-person level, rather than for individual support items’ (p.92).
Broadly speaking the removal of whole-of-person assessment also goes against the principles of the NDIS which were to provide person-centred care. Without whole-of-person assessment the NDIS will not be focussing on supporting people with disability but rather determining whether they have the right disability to receive support.
Recommendation 6: The Australian Government does not proceed with Part 3, including the removal of the note acknowledging that environmental factors and other ineligible impairments can affect support needs, or any other changes that contradict the findings of the NDIS Review in relation to whole-of person assessment.
2.2 Narrowing of reasonable and necessary supports (Part 6)
Schedule 1, Part 6 lifts reasonable and necessary supports criteria into the Act itself from the Rules, tightening and narrowing what can be funded. As such, it will make it harder to challenge, and it will lock in a narrower definition of what constitutes ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports. The EM states that ‘what is reasonable should be determined in part by what is reasonable to expect the Scheme to fund having regard to consistency across government funded social service systems and within available resources (consistent with Article 2 of the [CRPD])’ (p.46).
The use of Article 2 of the CRPD is significant overreach, because it does not set a standard for what can reasonably be excluded from funded supports based on either fiscal consideration or cross-system consistency. In fact, Article 19 and Article 26 provide a counterbalance for what is being proposed. Article 19 protects the right to live independently and be included in the community, which requires individualised support which would be identified formally through whole-of-person assessment. Article 26 requires states to organise, strengthen and extend habilitation and rehabilitation services, not limit them.
The funding power cap provided to the Minister in Part 4 read alongside Part 6 takes action in the opposite direction to what was recommended in Action 3.5 of the NDIS Review, for greater flexibility in how participants spend their budget with minimal exceptions (p.6).
The schedule does not provide any avenue for consultation with states/territories which would help with co-governance of the NDIS and help ensure ongoing collaboration and accountability. Without a co governance mechanism in place, it makes it difficult for jurisdictions to adequately assess and consider implications, negotiate and adequately determine the best programs for different people with disability who have been exited from the NDIS once the Bill is in operation.
Members expressed concern about the impact of the narrowing of reasonable e and necessary supports and the day-to-day impacts this will have on people’s ability to carry out a range of functions in their life.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 7Submission 273
For example, support and care workers who allow for community engagement could be lost. QDN members noted this will negatively impact on their ability to be part of their communities and to engage in day-to-day activities.
Recommendation 7: The Australian Government amends the Bill to demonstrate that the narrowed definition of reasonable and necessary still meets Australia’s obligations under the Convention as a whole, not just one article, noting the citation of Article 2 within the EM.
Recommendation 8: The Australian Government benchmarks NDIS support against other government funded social service systems by releasing whole-of-system modelling to demonstrate that those systems are adequate and sufficient to meet the needs of people being exited from the NDIS to those systems, including systems such as Centrelink and Foundational Supports.
- Plan Management and Continuity This section covers Schedule 1, Parts 2, 4, 5 and 7 or rather, how plans are managed, renewed, reduced and suspended.
3.1 Restrictions on plan reassessment (Part 2)
Schedule 1, Part 2 provides limits to unscheduled plan reassessments, by restricting who, and what grounds someone can ask for plan reassessment. The EM explains that ‘this Part will introduce sensible controls and conditions on plan reassessments to ensure that they can only be requested where there is a genuine change in a participant’s support needs. It will also ensure that only participants, and those authorised to act on their behalf, can request a plan reassessment’ however also notes that ‘there will be no change to the CEO’s ability to initiate a plan reassessment at any time and for any reason’ (p.17).
While QDN welcomes the provision that third parties including providers and planners cannot trigger reassessment, there is still a tension present through no change to CEO powers when the same Bill introduces significant restrictions on participant rights across Schedule 1.
This concern is compounded when Part 2 is read alongside Part 7. Under Part 7, the CEO gains a new power to suspend and then revoke plans where a participant cannot be contacted. An unrestricted CEO reassessment power sitting alongside a suspension and revocation power creates a significant risk of administrative action being used to effectively remove or reduce support without the participant having meaningful recourse or notice.
Members gave feedback that there would need to be clear safeguards for the participant to ensure there are reasonable grounds that would be acceptable to demonstrate why they have been unable to be contacted and a recourse of reinstatement of the plan and supports when this is demonstrated. QDN understands that it is critical that the Agency who is administrating the funding needs to have contact as part of safeguards with each participant and in circumstances where a person has not been able to be contacted for years upon years, there is an obligation on the Agency to ensure the participants plan meets current needs and is being used by the participant. However, there also needs to be reasonable circumstances and a hierarchy of actions that have been tried and demonstrated to contact before a suspension or revoke is enacted and accountability and monitoring when this occurs.
Recommendation 9: The Australian Government introduces safeguards on CEO reassessment, suspension and revocation powers under Parts 2 and 7, ensuring administrative action cannot be taken
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 8Submission 273
against a participant without meaningful recourse or notice, including where a disability or emergency has prevented the participant from responding.
3.2 Support determinations and ministerial funding power (Part 4)
Schedule 1, Part 4 enables new ministerial power to reduce funding for specified groups of supports across old framework plans. The EM provides additional detail that ‘These determinations are not applied on a ‘plan-by-plan’ basis but rather have the effect of reducing the funding for certain groups of supports across the Scheme. Changes to funding as result of support determinations are not subject to merits review’ (p.29).
QDN is concerned by powers enabled by the provisions in the new Section 34A: ‘the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine: (a) a percentage (lower than 100%) that is the percentage by which a funding component amount for a specified group of supports is reduced while the determination is in force; and (b) the old framework plans to which the determination applies (which must be plans that come into effect on or after the day the determination commences).’QDN sees that this will translate in practice to enable the Minister to make this determination without the need for it to be scrutinised by Parliament; an immediate reduction can take place, causing harm, before Parliament has an opportunity to intervene. This action also has consequences for State and Territory based services and supports where a reduction and constriction of funding for a specified category of support does not mean that this need goes away for the person and subsequently the disability population that will experience the impact of this change. Eg social and community participation supports that is already flagged for application of this power. Any decisions like this that have subsequent impact upon State/Territory based services and supports needs to be considered through the existing parliamentary mechanisms for Disability Ministers before an action is taken to enable appropriate planning, responses and communication across jurisdictions at Commonwealth and State/Territory levels.
Further, the ‘specific group of supports’ is not defined, instead leaving it to the discretion of the Minister. There are no criteria in the legislation limiting how the Ministerial power is exercised, no requirement to demonstrate need, and no proportionality test.
Alongside the narrowed reasonable and necessary criteria in Part 6, this power allows the Minister to first define what is reasonable and necessary more restrictively in the Act, and then further reduce funding within that already-narrowed definition by instrument. The two provisions together create a compounding reduction mechanism with no legislative safeguard.
This also denies State/Territory governments adequate input into the running of the potential changes to the NDIS announced in the Bill and as a result will make it harder for State/Territory governments to plan for and provide programs for people with disability who are no longer eligible for the NDIS. If there is no coordination and the Minister is provided with ongoing funding power, then there is a greater risk of delay in implementing programs announced by the relevant Minister if there is no coordination beforehand.
QDN members across the forums expressed grave concerns about the proposed increase in ministerial powers. Many felt the Minister having this level of power would risk having too much power with one person without opportunity for input and decision making across the Commonwealth and State/Territory bilateral arrangements and agreements including as financial contributors and lack of appropriate safeguards. Many members expressed that there could be severe unintended consequences
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 9Submission 273
if this level of ministerial power were to remain without moderation and safeguarding through existing bilateral arrangements and mechanisms.
Recommendation 10: The Australian Government removes the provisions in Schedule 1 Part 4 which enable Ministerial power to reduce funding for specified groups of supports across old framework plans, especially without further scrutiny or oversight by Parliament or State/Territory governments.
3.3 Plan renewal process (Part 5)
Schedule 1, Part 5 legislates an administrative “plan continuation” process with end dates and funding period requirements. Currently when a plan expires, participants often roll over onto an extended version of their existing plan informally while a new one is being prepared. Part 5 puts that process into the Act.
The removal of unspent funds rollover will substantially impact participants with degenerative disability, for whom accumulated funds provide a critical buffer against sudden significant decline, and all participants who rely on saving across plan periods for high-cost capital items such as aids and equipment. While the EM characterises accumulated unspent funds as inflation beyond what is reasonable and necessary, this framing fails to account for the legitimate planning purposes that accumulation serves (p.34). The EM also notes that renewed plans will remove one-off funding for assistive technology and home modifications (p.34).
QDN identifies significant concerns for introduction of funding period requirements and end dates, meaning a continued plan can be time-limited and the funding within it constrained. There is no guarantee the continued plan carries the same funding as the original. The shift to fixed end dates will place administrative burden on participants to engage with renewal processes on a fixed cycle regardless of whether their circumstances have changed. In conjunction with Part 7, a participant who misses a renewal process could find their plan suspended and then revoked. This will be irrespective of whether factors outside the control of the participant cause them to miss the renewal process deadline. This may also lead to impacts on services provided by State/Territory governments who will likely have to pick up the gaps in service provision if someone on the NDIS is impacted by sudden constraints in what they can use their plan for.
Subsequently, this will also impact review rights due to the constraints identified in the Bill. If review is not possible then this will greatly impact participants on the NDIS who may have had changes in circumstances that required the use of funding more quickly than anticipated, if this cannot be reviewed then the risk is that the flexibility of the NDIS is removed for its participants.
Recommendation 11: The Australian Government amends Schedule 1 Part 5 to ensure that rollover of funds is available, including one-off capital funding for home modifications and assistive technology with appropriate information and evidence, to ensure that participants can still purchase reasonable and necessary high-cost items across multiple plan periods.
Recommendation 12: The Australian Government works with State/Territory governments and introduces safeguards within Schedule 1 Part 5 to ensure that fixed plan end dates cannot result in plan suspension or revocation under Part 7 where a participant’s disability or an emergency has prevented engagement with the renewal process.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 10Submission 273
3.4 Plan suspension and revocation (Part 7)
As mentioned, Schedule 1 Part 7 enables a new CEO power to suspend and then revoke plans where a participant cannot be contacted. The CEO can suspend a participant’s plan if attempts to contact them have been unsuccessful. Once suspended, the participant has 90 days to make contact with the Agency. If they do make contact within that window, the CEO has 28 days to either reinstate the plan, replace it with a new plan, or take some other specified action. If the participant does not make contact within 90 days, the CEO can revoke the plan entirely, removing the participant from the Scheme.
QDN is concerned by several elements of these changes. First, there is no provision for extenuating circumstances, including a participant’s disability as a reason for being unable to be contacted. Further, there is no independent oversight or review mechanism. Section 40A(3) establishes that where a participant contacts the Agency within 90 days, the CEO has 28 days to act as per section 40A(4). However, section 40A(4)(b) allows the CEO to respond to a participant making contact by simply making a further request for information rather than reinstating the plan, which could extend the period without support further. This means the window for a participant potentially being without needed support could range between 28 to 118 days – that is, if supports are even re-established.
The Disability Royal Commission established through Recommendations 6.4 to 6.10 the elements of a supported decision-making framework (pp.217-221). The Bill’s suspension and revocation powers do not engage with that framework, meaning a person who cannot be contacted due to decision-making support needs has no protected pathway.
Recommendation 13: The Australian Government amends Schedule 1 Part 7 to require that reinstatement of a participant’s plan is the default response where contact is made within the 90-day window, and that the CEO cannot extend the period without support by making a further information request under section 40A(4)(b) in lieu of reinstatement.
Recommendation 14: The Australian Government amends Schedule 1 Part 7 to introduce extenuating circumstances provisions, including where a participant’s disability or an emergency has prevented contact, and to establish independent oversight of suspension and revocation decisions.
Recommendation 15: The Australian Government amends Schedule 1 Part 7 to reduce the maximum period a participant can be without support pending reinstatement, given the potential for serious harm to a person with disability where funded supports are suspended for a period of up to 118 days.
Recommendations 13, 14 and 15 should be read alongside Recommendations 9 and 12, which address related CEO powers and the interaction between Part 7 and plan end dates under Part 5.
- Integrity, Governance and Pricing QDN acknowledges there are legitimate integrity concerns within the Scheme and does not oppose measures to address genuine fraud. However, the scale of the legislative response in Schedules 2 and 3 warrants scrutiny.
The Government’s own officials acknowledged before the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS that ‘integrity leakage’ or the metric that explicitly bundles criminal fraud with inadvertent non-compliance, accounted for 8.3 per cent of $45 billion in total payments in the last financial year (John Dardo, NDIA, public hearing, Canberra, 1 May 2026). The NDIA’s own joint submission with the Department of Health,
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 11Submission 273
Disability and Ageing and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to the same inquiry acknowledged that ‘estimates of financial integrity loss are typically higher than detected fraud losses reported for mature programs such as Medicare, reflecting broader integrity risks beyond substantiated fraud’ and that ‘whole of government fraud reporting for 2022–23 shows that detected and substantiated fraud against the Commonwealth remains well under one per cent of total expenditure’ (DHDA, NDIA and NDIS Commission, Submission 42, May 2026, p.12).
Members expressed concern that much of the integrity concerns and new governance arrangements concerning registration of providers may lead to a loss of providers in rural, regional and remote areas across Queensland. Members noted these areas were already low on services and the risk that providers could be lost due to lack of registration needed to be considered by the government as part of the implementation process of the Bill. There is a critical need for market stewardship and a plan to deliver on this as well as workforce strategy. Members also noted this could also lead to loss of jobs and increased unemployment for workers affiliated with provider services. There are also key impacts for people with disability who self-manage who receive personal supports and the requirements for mandatory registration for these type of supports that members have raised as issues.
Recommendation 16: The Australian Government commissions an independent review of the proportionality of the legislative response in Schedules 2 and 3 against the evidenced fraud rate, disaggregated from broader integrity leakage figures, before the provisions come into force.
Recommendation 17: The Australian Government works with States/Territories to develop and deliver market stewardship that addresses the registration requirements and commissioning framework to deliver an appropriate approach for regional, rural and remote communities.
Recommendation 18: That the NDIS Amendment Bill be amended to strengthen co-governance arrangements between the Commonwealth and states and territories, including in relation to the use of transitional rules under Schedule 5 of the Bill and provide mechanisms for stakeholder state-based engagement, consultation to inform safeguards relating to major reforms and transitional arrangements.
Overarching recommendations
In addition to the points raised in this submission, QDN wants to ensure broad cross-cutting measures across all reform measures. First, genuine codesign needs to be built into legislation. Second, independent review mechanisms are embedded across parts of the legislation, notably relating to CEO powers granted by Parts 2 and 7. Sunset clauses are needed across the Bill’s major provisions, requiring Parliament to actively reaffirm the legislative changes within a defined period, and based on transparent evidence about the impact on people with disability. Finally, intersectionality needs to be considered throughout the entire Bill through analysis, to consider the impact for people with disability who are from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities, First Nations people, LGBTIQA+ and women.
Recommendation 19: The Australian Government amends the Bill to embed genuine codesign requirements in the legislation itself, ensuring people with disability and their representative organisations are meaningfully involved in the development of rules, thresholds and determinations made under the Bill, beyond consultation processes alone.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 12Submission 273
Recommendation 20: The Australian Government establishes independent review mechanisms across the Bill, with particular attention to CEO powers under Parts 2 and 7, to ensure that administrative decisions affecting participant access to support are subject to merits review and independent oversight. For example, consideration could be given to an independent tribunal or ombudsman that could assist with reviewing the provisions of the Bill and provide appropriate oversight of the Bills operation.
Recommendation 21: The Australian Government introduces sunset clauses across the Bill’s major provisions, requiring Parliament to actively reaffirm the legislative changes within a defined period based on evidence of their impact on people with disability. A review period of somewhere between 3-5 years could also be considered as part of this recommendation to give stakeholders a chance to review and provide feedback on how the provisions have worked.
Recommendation 22: The Australian Government commissions an independent Human Rights Impact Assessment of the Bill examining the cumulative and intersectional impact on people with disability who are women and girls, First Nations people, people from CALD backgrounds, who identify as LGBTIQA+, or who live in rural, regional or remote communities prior to the Bill proceeding to a vote.
Conclusion
The passage of the Bill through Parliament, if allowed, will amount to a failure of upholding the central premise on which the Scheme itself was built: a participant-centred scheme, centred on access to ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports to undertake the daily activities that other people take for granted. The NDIA’s website describes what the Scheme enables: “The NDIS provides funding to eligible people with disability to gain more time with family and friends, greater independence, access to new skills, jobs, or volunteering in their community, and an improved quality of life. The NDIS also connects anyone with disability to services in their community.” The NDIS Amendment Bill will reduce, if not eliminate, these promises for at least 160,000 participants, if not more.
The NDIS was hard won. It was the result of decades of advocacy by people with disability, their families and communities who refused to accept that a life of dignity was too much to ask. People with disability did not design a system for themselves that would strip away their independence, silence their voice in how supports are determined, and leave them without recourse when the system fails them. The Scheme was built on a promise that every Australian with disability would have access to the reasonable and necessary supports to live the life that others take for granted and it is critical that this Bill upholds this. QDN calls on the Committee to ensure the accountability and transparency of this part of the reform process.
QDN National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 | May 2026 13