Submission 298
SOCIAL WORK POLICY & ADVOCACY
ACTION GROUP at RMIT UNIVERSITY
The Social Work Policy and Advocacy Action Group at RMIT University is made up of social work students and academics with a shared commitment to human rights, social and environmental justice. The group brings together researchers, practitioners and people with lived experience. In line with our professional code of ethics, we advocate on key social issues with a particular focus on marginalised and disenfranchised communities.
This submission represents the views of the authors and not RMIT University.
Date: May 2026
SUBMISSION to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Summary
The proposed NDIS Bill represents a significant shift away from the original purpose and intent of the Scheme. While government rhetoric frequently refers to restoring the “original intent” of the NDIS, the measures proposed instead risk recreating the very system the NDIS was established to replace: one where support is rationed through administrative discretion, arbitrary budget limits and delayed access to necessary supports, rather than centred on the real needs and lives of Australians with significant disability support needs.
As stated by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the NDIS sought to move away from a system that was “inadequate and indefensible” and towards one that recognised people with disability as “valued and valuable members of our society”. The current Bill risks undermining these foundational principles by concentrating broad discretionary powers with the Minister and NDIA, reducing transparency and lived-experience participation in design, and weakening rights-based planning and review processes.
The disability community has consistently supported reforms that improve consistency, transparency and sustainability within the Scheme. However, sustainability cannot be pursued at the expense of participant rights, safeguards, and access to support. Any reform process must remain grounded in the core purpose of the NDIS: enabling people with disabilities to live safe, dignified and self-directed lives with genuine choice and control.
Page 1 of 9
Submission 298
Main Points
-
Concerns Regarding Broad Administrative and Ministerial Powers The proposed expansion of Ministerial and NDIA powers risks undermining participant rights, accountability, transparency and democratic oversight within the NDIS.
-
Review Processes, Appeals and Procedural Fairness Changes to review processes and appeal mechanisms may leave participants without timely access to decisions, supports and procedural fairness.
-
Functional Capacity, Eligibility and Permanency The proposed reforms to functional capacity, eligibility and permanency risk creating unrealistic, inequitable and discriminatory assessment outcomes.
-
Cost Shifting and Sustainability Concerns The reforms appear focused on reducing participant numbers and shifting costs to other service systems rather than addressing the underlying drivers of expenditure growth.
-
Foundational Supports and Community Services Foundational and community supports are not yet sufficiently established to safely support people excluded from or transitioned out of the NDIS.
-
Impact on Families and Carers The proposed changes risk increasing reliance on unpaid carers and placing additional financial, emotional and practical pressure on families.
-
Equity and Disproportionate Impacts The reforms are likely to disproportionately impact First Nations communities, rural and remote populations, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and low income families.
-
Automated Assessments and Standardised Tools Automated and standardised assessment processes risk oversimplifying complex disability experiences and producing unfair or inaccurate outcomes.
Page 2 of 9
Submission 298
- Commissioning and Block Funding Risks The Bill may create pathways toward block-funded and commissioning approaches that weaken participant choice, control and flexibility.
Recommendations
-
Remove or significantly limit broad and/or unilateral decision-making powers, including proposed s33(2EA)-(2EB), s34A and related provisions, and strengthen participant review and appeal rights.
-
Retain deemed decision protections to ensure participants maintain practical access to review and appeal pathways.
-
Delay implementation of reforms until foundational and community supports are fully operational, accessible and appropriately resourced across all states and territories.
-
Ensure all functional capacity and eligibility assessments consider assistive technology, environmental factors, cultural context, and personal circumstances, with human-led rather than automated decision-making processes.
-
Undertake independent analysis into the drivers of unscheduled reviews, including NDIA planning quality, provider overcharging, fraudulent practices and NDIA response timeliness, rather than focusing primarily on participant reduction.
-
Develop clear operational guidance regarding review and amendment pathways, including urgent, temporary and crisis-based support circumstances.
-
Reconsider section 25A permanency and cost-limit provisions to avoid discriminatory outcomes and ensure equitable access to reasonable and necessary supports.
-
Release transparent modelling on the financial, social and cross-system impacts of the proposed reforms, including impacts on health, mental health, housing, justice, child protection, carers, and First Nations communities.
Response: Key Concerns
Broad Administrative and Ministerial Powers
Page 3 of 9
Submission 298
The proposed section 34A powers, which would enable plans to be varied or reduced through sweeping administrative decisions, raises several issues. Such powers risk weakening trust and certainty for participants and increasing the imbalance of power between participants and the NDIA. The inclusion of 34A(3), which requires the Minister to consider participant safety, is inadequate; there is no known mechanism by which the safety implications can be meaningfully assessed in situations where s34A is exercised. Further, the lack of appeal rights in s34A situations is deeply concerning; ultimately, this section risks further marginalising and oppressing the voices of people with disabilities.
The Bill also appears to expand ministerial and administrative powers while weakening procedural safeguards for participants. Concerns regarding automated decision-making, limited review mechanisms, and reduced opportunities for participants to challenge decisions raise important questions about fairness, accountability, and transparency within the Scheme.
The Bill’s expanded Ministerial powers are particularly concerning in this regard. The inclusion of broad delegated powers, including so-called “Henry VIII” provisions that permit substantive changes within the first 12 months without the full parliamentary process, risks undermining accountability and democratic oversight. While flexibility to respond where reforms are not operating as intended may be beneficial, the current drafting lacks sufficient statutory safeguards, limitations or clear triggers governing when such powers may be exercised.
Minister pricing management removes parliamentary oversight and centralises NDIS funding and price decisions away from review/scrutiny.
Review Processes, Appeals and Procedural Fairness
Similarly concerning are the proposed changes to review processes and decision timeframes, including amendments that would prevent NDIA non-response from being treated as a reviewable decision. These changes risk leaving participants in procedural limbo, unable to meaningfully exercise appeal rights while awaiting NDIA action. The proposed extension of review processing timeframes has not been accompanied by sufficient justification or safeguards, aside from the NDIA’s inability to manage the administrative load to date. There is significant potential for implications for participant safety, continuity of support, hospital discharge, homelessness risk and carer breakdown.
The proposed powers allowing broad funding reductions without individual reassessment are particularly troubling. Blanket cuts made in the name of “financial sustainability” undermine the individualised foundation of the NDIS. Reducing supports without properly assessing functional impacts, participant safety, or long-term consequences risks causing
Page 4 of 9
Submission 298
substantial harm, including loss of independence, regression in development, reduced community participation, and worsening mental health outcomes.
Functional Capacity, Eligibility and Permanency
While the long-term sustainability of the NDIS is an important objective, the proposed reforms appear heavily focused on reducing expenditure rather than strengthening outcomes for participants. Many of the proposed amendments risk undermining the core principles upon which the NDIS was established, including individualised support, participant choice and control, community participation, and equitable access to services.
One of the most concerning aspects of the Bill is the proposed redefinition of “functional capacity.” Assessing individuals without considering assistive technology, environmental supports, or personal circumstances creates an unrealistic and incomplete picture of disability and support needs. Disability does not exist independently from the environments in which people live, learn, work, and participate. Ignoring these factors risks producing inaccurate assessments that fail to reflect a participant’s actual circumstances and support requirements.
The Bill also raises significant concerns regarding tightened eligibility criteria and changes to the interpretation of permanence and appropriate treatment. Many disabled people already face barriers accessing healthcare, specialist services, therapy, transport, and culturally safe supports. Access to services is often shaped by workforce shortages, financial disadvantage, geographic location, communication barriers, trauma, and carer capacity. Expecting individuals and families to exhaust all possible treatment pathways before accessing supports is unrealistic and may disproportionately disadvantage those with fewer financial and social resources.
Further operational ambiguity is created through the Bill’s emphasis on “ongoing support needs”, while failing to provide sufficient clarity regarding temporary, fluctuating or crisis based support requirements. This is particularly concerning in the context of section 47A amendment pathways, where there remains limited sector guidance on when an amendment rather than a full review process is appropriate. For example, participants may urgently require temporary supports, such as Short-Term Accommodation, due to crisis situations, even when these needs do not meet a strict interpretation of “ongoing”.
There is also concern regarding the proposed section 25A permanency provisions and associated cost-limit concepts. These provisions risk creating discriminatory outcomes where participants may effectively be expected to personally fund treatment, intervention or support options simply because they are considered “too expensive”, inaccessible, or
Page 5 of 9
Submission 298
unlikely to permanently reduce impairment. Such framing risks undermining the principles of equity and reasonable and necessary support that underpin the Scheme.
Cost Shifting and Sustainability Concerns
Reduction of participants down from 750k to 600k by 2030: A shift out of the NDIS onto other providers is not a cost saving, it’s a cost redistribution. This political framing of cost saving is misleading. Also, cost dispersion loses sight of spending categories and amounts holistically. Better decision making can be made from understanding all costs, not just a portion, as would be the case under the NDIS. Understanding this can drive efficiencies and economies of scale through large-scale provision of services, rather than dispersed and piecemeal spending.
With additional caseloads, how are the state-based services going to support this shift? Are they going to be resourced further or expected to absorb the cost? What is the path for transition?
There is a misidentification of what drives cost increases; reduction in the number of participants accessing the NDIS does not resolve the issue of excessive provider pricing and fraudulent service providers. Reforms should refocus away from participant number reduction to accountability and processes to streamline, identify issues with providers overcharging and create accountability in the system to support disabled people.
The NDIS should have a vision to be increasing over time as it is not currently capturing all disabled people. Cost-cutting exercises through participant numbers are unethical and misaligned to the overall premise of what the NDIS is there for in the first place.
Importantly, there has been insufficient transparency regarding whether these reforms will reduce overall public expenditure, rather than merely shifting costs onto already overburdened health, mental health, homelessness, justice and child protection systems across states and territories. This is particularly concerning given the likely disproportionate impact of the proposed changes on groups already facing barriers accessing supports, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, participants who live in rural or remote areas, and participants in lower socioeconomic demographics.
Foundational Supports and Community Services
It is of significant concern that the Bill proposes implementation timelines that are not contingent on other service systems being available, such as Foundational Supports. This
Page 6 of 9
Submission 298
should be addressed as a priority to ensure no participants are removed from the Scheme or have their funding amended without available alternatives in their communities.
Foundational and community supports that are intended to operate outside the NDIS are not yet fully established or consistently available. This creates substantial risks for children, young people, and families who may be left without appropriate services during critical periods of development and intervention. Early intervention and ongoing therapy supports play an essential role in supporting communication, participation, independence, education, and long-term wellbeing. Reducing access to these supports may lead to poorer outcomes not only for participants, but also for families and broader service systems. Limiting access to therapy and community-based supports may increase long-term demand on hospitals, mental health systems, homelessness services and education systems.
Reforms must delayed until community and foundational supports are fully established and accessible, particularly for rural, First Nations, and vulnerable communities. Government must ensure commencement of reforms is contingent upon foundational supports and related state systems being operational.
Impact on Families and Carers
There is also concern that the reforms will further increase reliance on unpaid carers and family supports, a role undertaken overwhelmingly by women. Families are already under significant pressure managing caring responsibilities alongside employment, housing stress, rising living costs, and mental health challenges. Reductions in funded supports may shift greater responsibility onto parents, siblings, and informal carers, increasing risks of burnout, financial hardship, and reduced wellbeing across entire households.
Equity and Disproportionate Impacts
The impacts of these reforms are also unlikely to be experienced equally across the community. First Nations communities, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, rural and remote populations, low-income families, and people without strong support networks are likely to experience disproportionate harm.
These communities already face significant barriers accessing services and navigating complex systems. Further tightening access to supports risks deepening existing inequalities.
Automated Assessments and Standardised Tools
Page 7 of 9
Submission 298
Review of eligibility/use of automated assessment tools: How can a disabled person be assessed consistently for impact on their life? How subjective is this assessment? Disability support is centred on being needs-based, not who is more disabled than the next and more deserving of financial support or who is impacted more by their disability than someone else.
A standardised automated tool oversimplifies complex disability needs and creates further disadvantage. Human assessment is ethical and all-encompassing of an individual’s challenges and needs. Automated assessments may not be efficient and may result in unwarranted exclusion of eligibility.
Commissioning and Block Funding Risks
There is significant concern that the Bill also lays legislative foundations for broader commissioning and block-funded approaches, including through current Integrated Care and Commissioning pilot initiatives. While integration across service systems is important, the NDIS was specifically designed to move away from block-funded models and limitations on participants’ autonomy, flexibility, choice, and control. The broad powers proposed within the legislation create pathways for these approaches to expand without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or co-design with the disability community. There is a clear need to strengthen legislative protections relating to participant choice and control.
Conclusion
The NDIS has transformed the lives of many disabled Australians by enabling greater independence, participation, communication, education, and inclusion within the community. While reform and sustainability are important, changes to the Scheme must strengthen these outcomes rather than weaken them.
Government needs to pause the progression of this Bill until proper consultation has occurred, adequate community supports are established, and transparent evidence regarding the likely impacts of the reforms is made publicly available.
Disability reform must prioritise dignity, participation, fairness, and long-term wellbeing rather than focusing narrowly on short-term budget reduction. The proposed changes carry significant risks for disabled Australians and their families, and these concerns warrant careful reconsideration before the legislation proceeds further.
Page 8 of 9
Submission 298
Submission written by: Bridget White, Freya Boopalan, Jennifer Thomas, and Pushkar
Sebastian Cordoba.
For any queries please contact:
Dr Pushkar Sebastian Cordoba
Social Work and Human Services
School of Global, Urban & Social Studies
RMIT University
Email:
Page 9 of 9