Submission to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee. National Disability Insurance
Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Note on participant examples: The participant examples included in this submission are de identified and are provided to illustrate practical impacts observed through frontline disability support work.
Executive Summary
-
I support measures that protect the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS.
-
The Bill should be amended to ensure sustainability measures do not reduce access to reasonable and necessary supports for participants with complex, fluctuating, episodic or invisible disabilities.
-
Functional capacity should be assessed by reference to whether a person can undertake activities safely, consistently, independently and sustainably in real-world conditions.
-
Funding reduction powers should not leave participants unable to access supports already assessed as reasonable and necessary.
-
Alternative supports should only be relied upon where they are actually available, accessible, timely, funded and capable of meeting the participant’s needs.
-
Fraud prevention and provider accountability should be prioritised before reducing participant supports.
-
Framework planning should retain flexibility, review rights and exceptions pathways for participants whose needs do not fit standardised funding categories.
- Introduction 1.1 I make this submission as I make this submission as a frontline disability support worker and Psychosocial Recovery Coach working directly with NDIS participants in Western Australia.
1.2 This submission supports the objective of scheme sustainability but recommends targeted amendments to ensure the Bill does not unintentionally reduce access to supports for participants with complex, fluctuating or invisible disabilities.
1.3 The submission focuses on provisions directly relevant to the Bill: proposed sections 9B, 34A and 25B, Schedule 2 integrity measures, and the proposed framework planning arrangements.
- Proposed Section 9B – Definition of Functional
Capacity
Relevant Provision
2.1 Item 4 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed section 9B into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.
2.2 Proposed subsection 9B(1) provides that a person’s functional capacity is to be assessed based on their ability to undertake an activity: “(a) without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and (b) in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.“
Concern
2.3 I am concerned that the proposed definition may not adequately reflect how disability affects participants in their everyday lives, particularly for people with psychosocial disability, neurological conditions, autism spectrum disorder, acquired brain injury and other disabilities characterised by fluctuating or invisible impairments.
2.4 By way of example, I support a participant living with Multiple Sclerosis. Although they may present well during short appointments, relapse, fatigue, pain and reduced mobility significantly affect their ability to participate safely and consistently in daily life.
2.5 A short or controlled assessment may therefore overstate functional capacity and understate support needs. Functional capacity should be assessed over time and in real-world contexts, including the effects of fatigue, relapsing and remitting conditions, degenerative conditions, environmental barriers, fluctuating symptoms and support requirements.
Recommendation
2.6 Proposed section 9B should be amended so functional capacity is assessed by reference to whether a participant can undertake activities safely, consistently, independently and sustainably in real-world environments.
2.7 Assessment processes should expressly recognise fluctuating, episodic and invisible disabilities and should consider environmental, social and personal circumstances where they materially affect support needs.
- Proposed Section 34A – Determinations Reducing Funding for Groups of Supports
Relevant Provision
3.1 Item 34 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed section 34A into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.
3.2 Proposed subsection 34A(1) permits the Minister, for the purpose of ensuring the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to determine a percentage reduction in funding for specified groups of supports.
3.3 Proposed subsection 34A(5) further provides that such reductions may apply even where the result is that the funding available to a participant is less than the total cost of supports that have been assessed as reasonable and necessary.
Issue and impact 3.4 Proposed section 34A is a significant concern because it may allow funding reductions even where supports have already been assessed as reasonable and necessary.
3.5 In practical terms, this could mean a participant is found to require a support but cannot access it because funding has been reduced at a broader policy level.
3.6 I support a participant with intellectual disability who has made significant gains in confidence, communication and community participation through consistent NDIS support. These gains depend on regular, structured opportunities to practise skills and build independence.
3.7 A short interruption in usual community engagement has previously resulted in noticeable decline in confidence, communication and motivation. This illustrates how quickly progress can be lost when supports are reduced or interrupted.
3.8 While proposed subsection 34A(3) requires the Minister to have regard to participant safety, many NDIS supports exist for purposes beyond immediate safety. The success of the NDIS should not be measured solely by whether participants avoid harm, but also by whether they are able to build skills, participate in their communities, pursue their goals and live meaningful, connected and increasingly independent lives.
3.9 The risk is not only immediate safety. Reduced supports can lead to loss of skills, increased isolation, greater reliance on ageing family members, carer burnout and higher long-term costs through crisis intervention, hospitalisation or supported accommodation.
Recommendation
3.10 Proposed section 34A should be amended so that a funding reduction cannot leave a participant unable to access supports that have already been assessed as reasonable and necessary.
3.11 Before any reduction takes effect, the Minister should be required to consider the likely impacts on participants, including effects on independence, community participation, skill development, informal support networks and long-term wellbeing.
3.12 The legislation should require meaningful consultation, advance notice, written reasons, accessible information, review rights and appropriate transitional arrangements before any funding reduction is implemented.
- Proposed Section 25B – Alternative Support
Requirements
Relevant Provision
4.1 Proposed section 25B introduces the alternative support requirements. A person will only meet the alternative support requirements where the conditions outlined in the section are satisfied.
4.2 Proposed subsection 25B(4) provides that an impairment may become an “excluded impairment” where a support is declared by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules to be an alternative support for that impairment.
4.3 Proposed subsection 25B(6) requires the Minister to be satisfied that it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support through the NDIS before declaring a support to be an alternative support.
Issue and impact 4.4 I support clear boundaries between the NDIS and mainstream service systems. However, proposed section 25B should not allow support responsibility to shift away from the NDIS unless the alternative support is genuinely available in practice.
4.5 Many participants rely on NDIS supports because other systems are delayed, capped, under-resourced or inaccessible. A support that exists on paper may not be accessible within a timeframe or location that meets the participant’s needs, or the participant may face significant barriers relating to eligibility, waitlists, workforce shortages or service availability.
4.6 Without safeguards, participants may fall between systems: the NDIS may determine another system should provide support, while that system lacks the funding, capacity or eligibility pathway to deliver it. This creates risk of service gaps, deterioration, loss of independence, isolation and greater reliance on crisis services.
Recommendation: Proposed section 25B should be amended so that alternative supports can only be relied upon where they are genuinely available, accessible, timely, appropriate, funded and capable of meeting the participant’s individual needs.
A clear “no gap” safeguard should ensure NDIS supports continue until an alternative support is confirmed to be available, accepted, funded and practically capable of meeting the participant’s needs. Participants should also receive written reasons, accessible information, review rights and transitional protections.
- Fraud Prevention and Scheme Sustainability
Relevant Provisions
5.1 Schedule 2 of the Bill introduces a range of measures aimed at strengthening fraud prevention, compliance, record-keeping, information gathering and enforcement powers within the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These include enhanced monitoring and investigation powers, expanded compliance and enforcement mechanisms, new record retention requirements and increased civil penalties for non-compliance.
Comment
5.2 I support strong measures to protect the integrity and financial sustainability of the NDIS. Fraud, misuse of funding and non-compliance reduce resources available to participants who genuinely require support.
5.3 Sustainability should first be pursued through fraud prevention, recovery of improper payments, provider accountability, administrative efficiency and enforcement of existing compliance requirements before reducing supports available to participants.
5.4 Compliance obligations should be proportionate and risk-based to ensure that regulatory requirements do not disproportionately disadvantage small providers. Excessive compliance burdens may reduce provider diversity and contribute to a market increasingly dominated by larger organisations, potentially limiting participant choice, flexibility and access to personalised supports.
5.5 Regulatory processes should remain accessible for participants with intellectual, cognitive, psychosocial or communication disabilities to ensure they can understand and respond to requests from the Agency.
Recommendation: 5.6 Prioritise fraud prevention, recovery of improper payments, provider accountability and compliance activities as primary mechanisms for improving NDIS sustainability.
5.7 Compliance measures should include clear communication, reasonable response timeframes, accessible formats and safeguards to ensure legitimate small providers are not discouraged from operating.
- Proposed New Framework Planning Arrangements
Relevant Provisions
6.1 Schedule 4 introduces amendments relating to the preparation of new framework plans, needs assessments and the methods used to determine funding amounts within participant plans. These provisions allow funding amounts to be determined using methods specified in National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules, including methods that identify levels of need, allocate funding amounts to those levels and impose maximum funding limits.
Concern
6.2 I am concerned that the proposed planning framework may move the Scheme away from individualised funding based on actual support needs and towards predetermined funding levels, bands or caps.
6.3 Participants with the same diagnosis can have very different support needs because of factors such as co-occurring conditions, trauma history, behavioural support needs, informal support availability, environmental barriers, communication needs, functional capacity and the presence of fluctuating or degenerative conditions.
6.4 Standardised funding methods may improve consistency; however safeguards are needed to ensure participants with complex, fluctuating, degenerative or high-intensity support needs are not underfunded because their circumstances do not align with predetermined funding levels, categories or benchmarks.
Recommendation
6.5 Funding methodologies, funding bands and maximum funding amounts should not result in participants receiving less funding than is reasonably required to meet their individual disability-related support needs.
6.6 Needs assessments should consider comprehensive evidence from participants, families, carers and treating professionals. Participants should retain the ability to demonstrate circumstances that justify funding above standard benchmarks where necessary.
6.7 Participants should receive transparent explanations of how assessed need and funding have been calculated, with review rights and exceptions pathways where standardised categories do not reflect actual disability-related support needs.
Summary of Recommendations
-
Amend proposed section 9B so that functional capacity is assessed by reference to whether a participant can undertake activities safely, consistently, independently and sustainably in real-world environments, taking account of fluctuating, episodic and invisible disabilities and relevant environmental circumstances.
-
Amend proposed section 34A so that funding reductions cannot leave participants unable to access supports already assessed as reasonable and necessary.
-
Require meaningful consultation, advance notice, written reasons, accessible information, review rights and appropriate transitional protections before any funding reduction determination takes effect.
-
Amend proposed section 25B so that alternative supports can only be relied upon where they are genuinely available, accessible, timely, appropriate, funded and capable of meeting the participant’s individual needs.
-
Introduce a “no gap” safeguard so that NDIS supports continue until an equivalent alternative support is confirmed to be available and practically accessible.
-
Prioritise fraud prevention, recovery of improper payments, provider accountability and administrative efficiency as primary mechanisms for improving Scheme sustainability.
-
Ensure compliance obligations are proportionate and risk-based so they do not disproportionately burden legitimate small providers, reduce provider diversity or limit participant choice and control.
-
Ensure new framework planning and funding methodologies remain sufficiently flexible to reflect individual circumstances, complexity, fluctuating conditions and evidence of actual support needs.
-
Provide transparent explanations, review rights and exception pathways where standardised funding methods do not adequately reflect a participant’s disability related support needs.
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I support measures that strengthen the integrity, sustainability and long-term viability of the NDIS. However, sustainability should not be achieved by reducing access to reasonable and
necessary supports or limiting meaningful participation for participants with complex, fluctuating, episodic or invisible disabilities.
The Bill would be improved by targeted safeguards that preserve individualised decision making, require transparent reasons and review rights, prevent service gaps, and ensure funding decisions remain based on evidence of each participant’s actual disability-related support needs.
I respectfully encourage the Committee to consider amendments consistent with the recommendations set out in this submission.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
10 July 2026