Submission 2991 — Name Withheld (2991 | External submission

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this submission. While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), I oppose the Bill in its current form because I believe several of its provisions undermine the founding principles of the NDIS: individualised support, participant choice and control, and equitable access for people with permanent and significant disability.

My concerns relate to the following provisions of the Bill.

Schedule 1 – Eligibility and Access Schedule 1 introduces significant changes to eligibility, including defining “functional capacity”, clarifying the meaning of permanence by introducing the concept of “all appropriate treatment”, and requiring decision-makers to consider whether supports should instead be provided by other service systems. These changes risk creating additional barriers for people with disability.

Many disabilities are fluctuating, episodic or complex and cannot be adequately captured through standardised assessments or narrow functional criteria.

The requirement that applicants exhaust “all appropriate treatment” before meeting the permanence test also creates uncertainty. Many conditions have ongoing therapies that improve function without curing disability. Participants should not be forced into repeated treatments simply to demonstrate eligibility.

The requirement to consider other service systems before granting access also raises concerns that responsibility will continue to shift between governments rather than ensuring participants receive timely support.

I recommend that Schedule 1 be amended to ensure: clinical evidence remains the primary basis for eligibility decisions; fluctuating and psychosocial disabilities are appropriately recognised; “all appropriate treatment” is clearly defined to avoid unreasonable expectations; participants are not denied access because another system is theoretically responsible but unable to provide timely support.

Schedule 2 – Participant Planning and Supports Schedule 2 makes substantial changes to participant planning by: introducing plan end dates and renewals; refining how reasonable and necessary supports are assessed;

strengthening the requirement that supports relate directly to eligible impairments; allowing reductions in funding for specified categories of supports. These provisions represent one of the most significant departures from the original design of the NDIS. Disability affects every aspect of a person’s life.

Supports promoting social participation, employment, education, independence and community inclusion cannot be viewed as discretionary expenses.

Reducing access to these supports reduce participants’ quality of life while increasing future expenditure across health, mental health and aged care systems.

I am also highly concerned that requiring supports to relate only to eligible impairments may disadvantage participants with multiple disabilities or complex co-occurring conditions where supports naturally address more than one area of need.

The Committee should recommend amendments that preserve the flexibility of individualised planning and maintain the broad interpretation of reasonable and necessary supports that has underpinned the NDIS since its commencement.

Ministerial Powers

Schedule 2 also allows the Minister to determine funding reductions for specified groups of supports. These powers are significant.

Decisions affecting participant supports should be determined by Parliament following consultation with the disability community rather than by ministerial determination alone.

Future governments must not have broad authority to remove categories of supports without comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny.

The Bill must include stronger safeguards, mandatory consultation requirements and parliamentary disallowance for any determinations affecting participant funding.

Functional Capacity Assessments

The introduction of functional capacity as a central legislative concept raises concerns regarding over-reliance on standardised assessment tools. Many disabilities vary significantly from day to day.

Participants with autism, psychosocial disability, neurological conditions, chronic illness or rare disorders often experience impacts that cannot be measured through a single assessment.

Clinical evidence provided by treating specialists and allied health professionals should remain central to planning decisions.

Functional assessments should complement—not replace—individual clinical evidence.

Participant Plans and Budget Flexibility

The introduction of plan end dates and revised planning arrangements may increase administrative burden for participants. People with permanent disability should not be required to repeatedly prove lifelong impairments simply because plans expire. As disabilities are permanent, longer-term plans should remain available. Participants require certainty and stability.

Schedule 3 – Governance and Administration Schedule 3 introduces governance changes including pricing arrangements, automated administrative decision-making and related administrative amendments. While administrative efficiency is important, automation should never replace human judgement where participant rights are affected.

Any automated processes must include: human review;

transparency regarding decision-making;
accessible review pathways;
safeguards against unintended bias. Administrative efficiency should never compromise procedural fairness.

Schedule 4 – New Framework Planning

Schedule 4 facilitates implementation of the new framework planning model and support needs assessments. This represents a major structural reform of the NDIS. Such reforms should only proceed after extensive independent evaluation and genuine co-design with people with disability.

The legislation currently leaves many operational details to future Rules.

Important participant protections should instead be contained within primary legislation to provide certainty and parliamentary oversight.

Fraud and Scheme Integrity

I strongly support provisions strengthening action against fraud, exploitation and poor-quality providers. Public confidence depends on ensuring taxpayer funds are spent appropriately. Fraud prevention measures should focus on providers engaging in misconduct rather than increasing administrative burdens on participants acting in good faith.

Participants should not experience reduced flexibility or increased compliance requirements because of provider fraud.

Consultation and Co-design

The disability community has consistently demonstrated a willingness to engage constructively in reform. Given the scale of these legislative changes, more comprehensive consultation and genuine co-design should occur before implementation.

Meaningful reform requires the lived experience of participants, families, carers and disability organisations to be embedded throughout the legislative process.

Human Rights

The NDIS is founded on Australia’s commitment to the rights of people with disability. Any reforms should strengthen—not diminish—the principles of: choice and control; equality; participation; independence; dignity. Legislation focused primarily on financial sustainability risks losing sight of the Scheme’s fundamental purpose: enabling people with disability to participate fully in Australian society.

Recommendations

I respectfully recommend that the Committee:

Amend Schedule 1 to protect access for people with permanent, fluctuating and complex disabilities.
Remove or substantially limit ministerial powers to reduce categories of participant supports.
Amend Schedule 2 to preserve participant choice, flexibility and individualised planning.
Ensure functional assessments supplement rather than replace clinical evidence.
Retain long-term plans for participants with lifelong disabilities.
Strengthen procedural fairness, review rights and human oversight of automated decisions under Schedule 3.
Delay implementation of Schedule 4 until the framework planning model has been independently evaluated and co-designed with the disability community.
Continue strengthening anti-fraud measures while protecting participant autonomy.
Place key participant safeguards in the Act itself rather than leaving them to subordinate legislation.
Ensure all reforms are consistent with the objects and principles of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.

The NDIS should absolutely be sustainable for future generations. Sustainability should be achieved by reducing fraud, improving administration and strengthening provider accountability—not by weakening participant rights or restricting access to essential supports. I respectfully ask the Committee to recommend substantial amendments to the Bill before it proceeds through Parliament.