Submission 2869 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

The NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 trades financial capacity and compliance with putting people with disabilities first. There are forseeable risks that the ramifications of this bill can harm people with disabilities. It is already causing harm to the disability community, as disabled people are worried that they may be one of the ones no longer eligible for NDIS and have to discontinue the supports that they currently access, disabled people are exploring options such as accessing voluntary-assisted suicide. In other words, the contents of this bill and the governments messaging has retraumatised a highly traumatised population. This is at odd with state and federal governments being more mindful of and legislating psychosocial risks and hazards.

The concerns that I have as a provider of NDIS services that impact myself and many other providers, as well as the worry and empathic distress I feel for what this could look for the people I work with and the disability community as a whole is as follows.

The amendment forgets the history of why NDIS was originally created and the original aims.

NDIS was created in partial response to the 2011 Productivity Commission report that found disability:

Was largely framed as an economic issue, rather than a social issue.
Has a significant personal and financial risk risk to people with disabilities and their families.
Lacked of ongoing certainty of supports.
Had a fragmented system, as each state varied widely in how they support people with disabilities.
Lacked of variety of supports and a lack of choice and control of what supports people with disabilities can access.

The current amendment pushes people with disabilities and their families to a system that was more akin to pre-NDIS. The amendment will do the following:

Prioritises the perceived economic sustainability of the NDIS rather than the needs of people with disabilities. This is due to: ◦The reduction in the number of NDIS participants. ◦Further restricting who is eligible for NDIS. ◦The ability to reduce group of supports, which has already been recommended to therapy supports and social participation supports. ◦Giving the minister and NDIS more power to control pricing, despite the recommendation that pricing should be set by an independent authority due to the conflict of interest. ◦The value for money requirement meaning that even if a support is reasonable and necessary, the NDIS won’t pay for it due to the cost.
NDIS will be a wait to fail support. ◦Funding based on functional capacity completely ignores the social model for disability, which can mediate the impact and changes to someones disability related functional capacity. This means that early intervention and preventative supports will be discouraged if the participants functional capacity is not substantially impacted first.

It also ignores several disabilities where the diagnostic criteria states that level of disability can change over the course of their life. This means that some

people with a particular disability may be under serviced due to their historic severity level.

It also ignores the enmeshment of someone’s disability with themselves. How can we ever delineate what is directly related to someone’s disability with what may be personal and/or environmental circumstances? There is the risk of circular causality. Personal and/or environmental circumstances can intensify someone’s disability. If we don’t effectively address the underlying setting events, then we are forever stuck in responding to perpetual issues, rather than preempting them and eliminating the problem from existing. ◦Requiring participants to access treatments before they can access NDIS services exposes people with disabilities to treatments that may be commonly used and evidence based, but are outdated and may be harmful. It also ignores contemporary, recent research of more disability-affirming, inclusive, and disability-rights approaches and interventions that have yet to have rigorous evidence-based. I find it is much more common when working with people with disabilities that practice-based approaches are more commonly used. This then leads to research being conducted on the approach. The risk is that emphasising evidence-based approaches means that we may lag behind in approaches that may work for a particular disability and the research/evidence needs time to catch up. ◦NDIS want information from providers, and health services about matters such as evaluation of supports and diagnostic labels. However, evidence from those services will not be considered in decision making of functional impairment and plan reviews. This completely ignores the value of the evidence from those who know the participant. Johari’s window is a suitable framework in considering the blind spot for NDIS when considering what supports a participant needs. ◦Increasing the time for access decisions to be reviewed from 21 to 90 days, informing participants of changes to their plans to possibly more than 7 days, and changes to the plan starting the day prior to the decision means that: ▪impact of future participants disabilities may intensify if they have to wait longer. ▪Participants may access a service they are no longer able to access and providers may provide a service that is no longer funded by NDIS. Providers may not have any recourse in recuperating their costs outside of privately billing a participants. As a provider myself, I am acutely aware that many participants simply wouldn’t be able to pay a private bill.

Risks harm to people with disability, due to: ◦Lack of certainty of supports. ▪one-off supports that may yet to be implemented and/or paid for may be removed when a participant moves onto the new planning framework before the participant has received the support. ▪Ongoing support may be cut or removed as it is not considered value for money or part of a reduction to a group of supports. ◦Requiring other supports or government services to be explored first risks harm to participants in accessing services that are not appropriate to them, exposure to services that are not delivered by people who have expertise with people with disabilities, and services that cannot provide the intensity or longer-term supports that the person requires. This leads to people bouncing around in systems, more likely to be missed or forgotten, and disengagement of people from the system. It ignores how pre-existing services and providers can be

leveraged to fill gaps, rather than waiting for new services or programs to be created and staff being trained to deliver them. ◦Being removed or support removed from NDIS for arbitrary reasons. ▪The NDIS amendment does not consider what is reasonable with contacting people about their plan before suspending or removing their plan. It does not consider how to meet the person with disability where they are at in the best way of contacting them. ▪If a participant doesn’t use all of their funds before their next plan, their funding is reduced to what they did use in their next plan. This completely ignores context, barriers in accessing services, and individual circumstances. It also assumes that all providers charge the maximum rate in the pricing agreement. Some providers charge less than the maximum rate and therefore there may be a shortfall at the end of the plan. This will only incentivise providers to charge the maximum rate, which contradicts the NDIS’s financial sustainability priority. ◦Automated tools being vaguely worded. Whilst NDIS have so far been clear on the reasonable reasons why this needs to be included in the amendment, there isn’t a safeguard for overreach of the extent that automation can be used. There is limited ability for independent review of decisions of automated tools and a conflict of interest that the CEO is the one who can review their own decisions. ◦Too much power given to the minister without proper oversight. Whilst the nature of Schedule 5 is for the minister to respond rapidly to changes, there is also risk to participants if the decisions negatively impact them. For example, additional cost-saving measures. All substantial decisions regarding eligibility, supports, and funding levels should be continued to require parliamentary scrutiny.

Pushes more of the burden of caregiving responsibilities onto families. One purpose of the NDIS was providing supports to people with disabilities to free families up to engage in the workforce. ◦Currently, supports can be provided to families and caregivers to improve their capacity to support the person with disability. This has been a valuable early intervention and response support. It has also been valuable in identifying and managing family/caregiver burnout risk, which places the person at disability at risk of harm. If supports where the sole purpose is to families and caregivers is removed, this increases risk of harm. ◦Decreased ability for families and caregivers to participate in the workforce as more of their time is needed to transport and attend appointments, manage NDIS supports, and increased emotional and financial burden.
Increased fraud measures and governance arrangements prioritise protecting the NDIS. There should be measures in place to protect people with disabilities. ◦There should be increased recognition for people with disabilities to more easily raise their concerns or complaints, escalate their complaints, and have timely responses of their complaints. ◦Changes in how and when reviews of participants plans should be removed. The NDIS already significantly lag in their responses to reviews of participants plans, as well as when to review a participants plan. I have adolescent clients whose plans haven’t been updated since early primary school. Their needs are significantly different. One reason for this is participants are reluctant to have their plans reviewed because of the risk of it being cut. There should be some safeguards in place, otherwise participants won’t speak up. They will be at risk of being under supported and requiring more intensive, costly supports. ◦Measures in place to protect people with disabilities from NDIS/NDIA themselves. I have had clients whose plans are reduced or are mislead by

NDIS/NDIA. One example that comes up time again is clients who say that they cannot see me as their NDIA planner says that the NDIS won’t fund it or will provide another services instead. This completely ignores the rules of stated vs unstated supports. It also places people at disability at risk of moving from a provider that they are safe and happy to see to a new, unfamiliar provider whom may not end up being safe. It also indicates that NDIA planners are still unsure what disciplines provide what sort of service.

The amendment will also significantly impact the provider market and what services can be provided. Some may be for the better, but on balance, it is likely to be worse.

There have been increased financial sustainability issues of allied health businesses due to funding freezes. Prioritisation of the perceived financial sustainability of the NDIS will only cause more businesses to close. One specific example relates to clinical psychologists. They essentially take a pay cut to provide NDIS services as the $232.99 is below what many charge. Although differential pricing is being considered, I would strongly advice against creating a new two tier system, like currently exists in NDIS. Generally speaking, I find the supports I provide as a registered psychologist is more or less the same as a clinical psychologist when working with disability. It also ignores the significant training that is required after university to effectively and safely work with people with disabilities as it is not covered well in undergraduate and postgraduate training.

Additionally, it there is also risk to provider sustainability if they have to weigh up whether to charge for a service with the possibility that the service they provide may be cut or reduced in the future. For example, many allied health professionals already undervalue their services by completing work that should be billed for free.

The amendment will push participants to medium to large business and away from sole traders. Whilst this may be beneficial for collaborative care, it ignores the reasons why participants are seeking out sole traders and why there is an increase in sole traders. Instead, NDIS should be incentivising or requiring collaboration to occur. Many participants prefer the individualised, personal support that sole traders provide. In medium to large businesses, they often feel more like a number and they often experience a revolving door of staff. Participants have also felt unsafe with larger providers, especially with raising concerns. A reduction in the number of service agencies will mean less choice for participants to move to another provider as another suitable provider in their area may not exist.

Sole traders providing NDIS services have increased due to the increase flexibility they provide, the ability to take on a sustainable number of clients, and the ability to provide more individualised care. For example, allied health providers in medium to large businesses are generally bound by billable hours KPI’s. This has to be the case for the financial sustainability of the business. However, this risks provider burnout, a revolving door of providers. Many sole traders find that working for a medium to large business is incompatible with how they work best and in the best interest of their clients.

I recommend that a specific subsection in capacity building supports be included for case coordination. This should enable more collaboration with a participants services and support the financial sustainability.

The value for money considerations mean that services may go to whom can provide the service the cheapest, rather than whom is the best provider to support the person with a disability. For example, psychologists have a higher maximum

rate when compared with other allied services, which means that NDIS planners may be incentivise to look at other allied health services whom are cheaper. Rather than considering the role each allied health provider plays, as well as longstanding relationships participants have with their participants.

It also risks disciplines with significantly less training take on more responsibility due to being more affordable for NDIS. This places participants at risk of harm of receiving a service from a provider who is not sufficiently trained or without professional oversight. It would also increase confusion of scope of practice in the health industry.

The value for money and functional capacity considerations mean that services are more likely to be quick fixes, ignore clinical decision-making in what the provider decides as the best approach to support the person, and risks under-servicing the client as services need to be related to their functional capacity rather than personal or environmental considerations.

For example, the way the amendment reads, if I am working with an autistic child to develop their emotional regulation skills, and they experience significant distress because they need to go to hospital for a health concern, I may not be able to work with them on this. This is due to the reason being personal circumstance and not primarily related their autism disability. I could do some adjunct support in reviewing emotional regulation skills, but may not individualise it to their current concern.

Many providers work multiple jobs, industries, and funding streams. There is risk that governance measures may not protect the confidentiality of clients who are not funded by NDIS. For example, if a laptop computer is seized, only NDIS-related data should be obtained and safeguards should be considered so other client data is not exposed (e.g., clients accessing Medicare services, confidential state government material if a provider also works for the state government).
Registration of plan managers and supported independent living will be important, so long as NDIA are effective in reducing harm to participants and reducing the fraud that they have been failing to detect. However, I recommend caution of requiring all NDIS providers being registered. For example, many allied health providers are registered with AHPRA. This requires allied health providers to work to a set of competencies, code of conduct, and already has strong investigative powers. Requiring to also be registered with NDIA is an unnecessary duplication and may led to participants having a false sense of security.

In summary, although the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 addresses issues that are current within the NDIS, current for people with disabilities, and reflect some of the recommendations from the 2023 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, on balance it is more likely that these changes will:

Repeat the issues identified in the 2011 Productivity Commission report.
Increase harm and prejudice to people with disability as the government and community see disability supports as a financial burden.
Cause significant distress and expose people with disability to repeat trauma.
Under service participants through cuts to funding amounts and removal of services. It lacks evidence-based decision making related to reducing funding – something can be expensive, but also effective.
Lead to people with disability exposed to a wait to fail approach, being missed when they are not eligible for NDIS but don’t have adequate supports in the meantime.

Increases emotional and financial burden on families and caregivers, which is both a psychosocial hazard but can also negatively impact the economy due to increased disengagement in the workforce.
Overemphasises current functional capacity, rather than early intervention and prevention, or addressing systemic issues for the participant and their family.
Continue to ignore the systemic inequality of access to high-quality disability supports, as NDIS currently only services approximately half of people with a disability. It doesn’t also address the gap between the number of people who would reasonably eligible for NDIS supports with a psychosocial disability with how many that actually do.
Doesn’t effectively address areas of monetary waste and fraud and will only make the total expense more palatable.
Provide more power to NDIA, NDIS, and the minister, without effectively establishing the need for reduced oversight.
The fraud and governance arrangement doesn’t effectively address risk of harm to participants.
Increase risk for people with disability to be pushed away from services they trust and have a long-term existing relationship in into services that they do not agree with or into supports that are not appropriate for them or into supports provided by cheaper but less skilled personnel.
Further negatively impacts the financial sustainability of services that are doing the right thing and providing high quality services. The changes will also lead to job losses and increased risk of psychosocial risk of provider burn out, thereby also negatively impacting the economy.

Finally, as I am a highly reflective practitioner who abides by strong ethical practices and guidelines, I believe it is my duty to acknowledge my bias’ and conflict of interest. This is something that has been missing by those commenting publicly on the NDIS Amendment and the NDIS as a whole. I have written this submission with consideration of these factors. For example, as a provider of NDIS services, there is a financial incentive for some of these changes not to occur. I also acknowledge that disability and disability support is multifaceted and complex, and it is impossible for my submission to consider all possible ramifications for all people with disabilities. Instead, my submission focuses on my context and the clients that I work with.

Finally, from the experiences in my work and engaging in the disability community, the mantra “nothing about us without us” has really been forgotten or underutilised. Although the government is seeking voices within the disability community, the sentiment is that only certain voices are being listened to and actioned upon. “Nothing about us without us” needs to be fair and equitable, and when people with disabilities are being listened to, evidence is needed that what they say actually matters based on the follow up actions by the government.