National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2903
To Whom It May Concern,
I write in opposition to aspects of the proposed NDIS legislation amendments due to serious concerns regarding human rights, procedural fairness, participant autonomy, and Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
While I acknowledge the importance of maintaining the long term sustainability and integrity of the NDIS, this must not come at the expense of the fundamental rights, dignity, and safety of people with disability.
The proposed amendments significantly shift the balance of power away from participants and toward the NDIA and Ministerial discretion. This raises substantial concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and the erosion of participant choice and control, which were intended to be foundational principles of the scheme.
Specific concerns include:
The introduction of restrictive definitions around what constitutes an NDIS support creates uncertainty and increases the risk that participants will lose access to supports they currently rely upon to participate safely and meaningfully in daily life. The bill appears to narrow eligibility for supports through legislative instruments and delegated rules rather than primary legislation reducing safeguards for participants.
The increased use of rule-making powers and broad discretionary authority is particularly concerning. Significant aspects of participant eligibility and support access may effectively be determined outside of Parliament through future NDIA rules and Ministerial instruments. This creates instability and makes it difficult for participants to understand their rights or challenge decisions fairly.
The proposed changes also risk undermining Section 34 principles regarding reasonable and necessary supports. The shift toward lists of approved or excluded supports risks creating a rigid system that cannot adequately respond to individual circumstances, functional impairment, or fluctuating support needs.
The proposed changes under Section S33 2 E A principles allows the Minister to cap any support for any group of participants at any time. This is very concerning as the Minister can decide by legislative instrument with no parliamentary oversight. The three main things that the Minister can place a cap on, with no Parliamentary oversights is the amount of funding for any particular support, the maximum of intensity (ie 12 speech therapy sessions a year) and a maximum worker to participant ration.
The proposed changes under Section 50A is that a participants plan will be automatically renewed when it comes to an end for twelve (12) months but any unused funds will be removed. This will mean that one off items ie wheelchair, home mods, car mods that have not be ordered, paid for, finalised will not be carried over and the participant will need to start the process again, generally costing thousand of dollars in reports.
The proposed changes under Section 48A is that it will be a lot harder for a participant for ask or an unscheduled reassessment. Under the proposed changes the Agency will have ninety (90) days to decide whether or not they will grant a participant a plan reassessment. If the participant doesn’t hear from the Agency in ninety (90) days they wont be able to go to Appeal as they cant appeal until
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2903
they hear back from the Agency. If a plan reassessment is granted there has to be a significant change in either your functional capacity, living arrangements, education, work or informal supports. Informal supports circumstances in particular have to be unanticipated. God forbid an informal support due to their own medical circumstances, age or death cant sustain the care of their loved one, which they have been doing for years.
Under bill 40A and 31A a participants plan can be suspended and then revoked by the CEO if the participant cant be contacted after reasonable attempts. Under the proposal is no definition of what is classed as reasonable attempts.
The legislation also appears to increase barriers to review and appeals processes. For many participants, particularly those with intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, cognitive impairment, or limited advocacy support, increased administrative complexity directly impacts access to justice and procedural fairness.
Section 5 of the bill gives the Minister the power to make transistional rules for the next twelve (12) months. This can literally change the way the NDIS Act works. I personally don’t understand how one Minister can have so much power without being accountable to anyone.
Further concerns arise regarding information gathering, monitoring, and compliance powers contained within the amendments. While fraud prevention is important, oversight mechanisms must remain proportionate and should not create an environment where disabled people are treated with suspicion simply for accessing support.
Without the NDIS support that my adult person with disabilities currently has he would never leave the house. He would become isolated from his community which would lead to bigger mental health issues.
When NDIS was first implemented, I was told that my son would not have services denied that he was accessing pre-NDIS. With all the proposed changes this is exactly what is going to happen if the Minister puts a cap, be it in hours or monetary terms. Pre-NDIS my son accessed speech pathology, short term accommodation, occupational therapy. Now there is uncertainty about what services he will be able to access and how frequently. When NDIS was implemented all the OrganisationS that we were able to access for my sons services (he has now “aged out”) were stripped of their funding and those funds were “handed over” to NDIS.