National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2734
Submission by Opposing the Legislation of the Future Generations Bill
I write to formally oppose several provisions contained within the Future Generations Bill, as I believe these changes will significantly undermine the rights, dignity, autonomy, and wellbeing of people living with disability and their carers.
Section 34A
I strongly oppose the proposed power allowing the Minister to impose blanket reductions to participants’ plans through legislative instrument, without adequate procedural fairness or meaningful avenues for participant review and appeal. This applies across all categories of NDIS funding, including social and community participation supports.
Granting such unilateral authority effectively places the Minister in the position of judge, jury, and executioner over the lives of people with disability. Decisions of this magnitude must be subject to transparency, accountability, and independent review.
Section 33(2)(e)(a)
As a carer of persons with disability-related needs, I oppose the Minister being given legislative authority to cap supports at any time or dictate maximum funding amounts for specific supports or classes of support.
Disability is not one-size-fits-all. Two participants with the same diagnosis may require vastly different supports. For example, one participant may require only one or two allied health providers, while another with similar funding may require engagement with five or six specialists to adequately address their complex needs. Funding flexibility is essential to ensure supports remain tailored to the individual rather than constrained by arbitrary caps.
There must also be full transparency surrounding funding methodologies and support caps.
Section 34(1AA) – Whole Person Approach
I oppose the failure to adopt a genuine whole-person approach within the legislation.
People with disability are whole human beings with interconnected needs. A participant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), for example, may also experience communication difficulties, sensory challenges, nutritional barriers, or mental health concerns. Effective support requires recognition of the person in their entirety, not fragmented funding decisions that ignore the complexity of disability and the importance of positive long-term outcomes.
Section 50A
I strongly oppose the clawback of unspent funds.
People with disability often face significant barriers to engaging supports, including hospitalisation, workforce shortages, regional service gaps, and reduced provider availability. Removing flexibility in how supports are used dismantles the principles of choice and control.
For instance, if a participant receives one hour of support funding per week but wishes to utilise those hours as two five-hour support blocks during school holidays, they should retain the right to do so if that arrangement better meets their disability-related needs and maximises successful engagement.
Support delivery must remain flexible and participant-led.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2734
Section 48A
I oppose the barriers being introduced around requesting unscheduled plan reviews when disability-related needs change, as well as limitations on appealing such decisions.
Disability needs can fluctuate rapidly and unpredictably. Participants must retain timely access to review mechanisms without unnecessary administrative obstacles.
Sections 40A and 31A
I oppose granting the CEO authority to suspend a participant’s plan simply because contact cannot be established within a prescribed timeframe.
Disability and caring responsibilities do not operate according to rigid administrative schedules. Hospitalisations, crises, cognitive impairments, mental health episodes, and communication barriers can all affect a participant’s ability to respond promptly.
I also oppose the introduction of civil penalties without sufficient consideration for participants living with intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injuries (ABI), or traumatic brain injuries (TBI), who may face additional barriers in understanding or complying with complex administrative requirements.
Section 9B
I oppose the “naked person” approach to eligibility assessments.
Disability does not simply cease to exist. For many individuals, disability is lifelong and permanent. Eligibility frameworks must recognise the ongoing realities of living with disability rather than artificially separating individuals from the supports they require to participate meaningfully in society.
Schedule 5 – Transitional Rules
I oppose the Minister being granted broad powers to create transitional rules that may be shaped by the priorities or agenda of the government of the day.
Such powers create uncertainty and instability for participants and do not adequately safeguard the interests of people with disability. Any transitional arrangements must be subject to tighter legislative limits, independent oversight, and genuine consultation.
Consultation and Intergovernmental Responsibility
There must be meaningful consultation with the people who will be directly impacted by these changes — namely, people with disability, their families, carers, advocates, and support networks.
The Federal Government must also work collaboratively with states and territories to establish clear funding responsibilities, similar to the framework previously established under the COAG Agreement. There must be transparent definitions regarding which government portfolios will assume responsibility for supports no longer funded through the NDIS.
People with disability deserve certainty, dignity, fairness, and genuine partnership in decisions that affect their lives.
The NDIS must be sustainable, but not at the expense of people with disability and their families. No participant should lose funded supports and no one person should hold the power to do that, especially without reviewable rights of that decision
Kind regards