Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Date: 1 June 2026
Introduction
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on
Community Affairs regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I am a former NDIA Planner with direct experience in internal decision-making processes within the Agency.
Based on my experience, I believe this Bill risks embedding and expanding practices that already undermine fair, consistent, and participant-centred decision-making. During my time at the NDIA, I observed decisions being made without adequate understanding of participants’ disabilities, without thorough review of supporting reports, and in some cases before meaningful communication with participants had occurred. I also observed instances where personal views about certain disabilities appeared to influence funding decisions, rather than a consistent application of the “reasonable and necessary” criteria set out in legislation.
This Bill requires significant scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The consultation period is insufficient and does not allow meaningful participation, particularly for people with disability, their families, and those with professional insight into the system. Accessible and informed consultation cannot be achieved within such a limited timeframe.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period to a minimum of 30 days in line with best practice.
Key Decisions Left to Ministerial Instruments
My experience within the NDIA demonstrated that internal decision-making can already lack consistency and transparency. Allowing critical eligibility and funding decisions to be determined through ministerial instruments, without parliamentary scrutiny, will exacerbate these issues.
I observed decisions being made without full consideration of available reports, and sometimes without adequate understanding of the participant’s circumstances. Embedding further flexibility without oversight risks legitimising inconsistent decision making at a systemic level.
Page 1 of 3
Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting eligibility and funding be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with advance notice to participants.
Existing Participants Face Narrower Criteria and Fewer Rights
Participants already face significant barriers when attempting to challenge decisions. I observed plans being altered or reduced before participants were properly informed, and without a conscientious review of supporting evidence.
Reducing review rights will increase the likelihood that inappropriate or poorly informed decisions will go unchallenged, resulting in reduced supports and increased reliance on informal care.
Recommendation: Introduce a “no harm” safeguard ensuring participants do not lose supports without equivalent alternatives, and preserve full independent review rights.
Unreviewable Ministerial Power to Cut Funding
I observed funding decisions that appeared to be influenced by individual judgement or assumptions about certain disabilities, rather than a consistent and evidence-based application of legislation.
Granting unreviewable powers to reduce funding significantly increases the risk of participants losing essential supports without transparency or accountability.
Recommendation: Require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect, and allow unspent funds to be carried over where appropriate.
Requirement to Exhaust Treatment Options
Requiring participants to exhaust treatment options does not reflect real-world constraints such as cost, availability, wait times, or individual capacity to engage with treatment.
In practice, this requirement would delay access to essential supports and increase hardship for participants.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with this requirement.
Unvalidated Assessment Tools
Accurate assessment is critical. In practice, participant needs are complex, dynamic, and often not adequately captured by narrow or point-in-time assessments.
A tool that fails to capture fluctuating or cumulative impacts risks underestimating need and reducing supports inappropriately.
Page 2 of 3
Recommendation: Do not implement assessment tools unless they are fully validated and capable of capturing the full range of participant needs.
Supports Cut Before Replacement Systems Are Ready
Based on my experience within the NDIA, system transitions are complex and often delayed. Reducing supports before replacement systems are operational will create immediate gaps.
This will increase reliance on families and carers, reduce participant independence, and negatively impact wellbeing.
Recommendation: Ensure no reductions occur until replacement supports are fully operational, adequately funded, and accessible.
Conclusion
Based on my direct experience as a former NDIA Planner, I have serious concerns that this Bill risks embedding and expanding decision-making practices that are already failing to consistently uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and participant centred support.
I have seen firsthand how decisions can be made without sufficient understanding of a participant’s disability, without thorough engagement with available evidence, and at times influenced by subjective interpretation rather than a rigorous application of the legislation. These are not isolated issues—they reflect systemic risks that this Bill, in its current form, will entrench rather than address.
Legislation of this significance must strengthen safeguards, not weaken them. It must ensure that decisions affecting the lives of people with disability are accountable, evidence-based, and open to appropriate review.
I strongly urge the Committee to recommend that this Bill not proceed in its current form, and that meaningful amendments be made to protect the rights, dignity, and long-term wellbeing of NDIS participants.
Page 3 of 3