Submission 3261 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

Submissions on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)

Bill 2026

Prepared by:

01.06.2026

I have prepared this submission while thinking of the many people I have worked with as an occupational therapist over the last 20 years, including people with cerebral palsy, motor neurone disease, acquired brain injury, traumatic brain injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis and autism, as well as my experience supporting a child with a disability and interacting with people who have disabilities on participant forums.

It is very disappointing to see this legislation introduced before seeing a bill with proposed reforms to the Disability Discrimination Act. Many of the participants who will be removed from the scheme over the next 5 years face massive hurdles to more mainstream social and community participation due to the discrimination, hatred and violence that they encounter, which there is very little protection for in the way that the current DDA has been interpreted by the courts. Having said that, here we are and in the following pages I have presented my concerns with specific amendments contained within the above bill.

Schedule / Concern or recommendation

Provision

Schedule 1 – Item 4, This subsection appears to be an attempt to overcome the precedent Proposed section 9b set by the CEO of the NDIA v Eastham (2026) FCA 147. In this case, which provides a Lea Eastham was unable to hold a driver’s licence due to his visual definition of impairment. In my opinion the most ridiculous argument put forward functional capacity by the NDIA in the case was that: that ‘excludes, as far as possible, the 68 ‘that inability’ (to hold a driver’s licence) ‘was said by the Agency to impact of the arise from the legislation governing road safety. This legislation was person’s said to have broken any nexus between an inability to drive and Mr environmental and Eastham’s vision impairment’. The legislation should not be changed personal to allow the NDIA to separate people’s disabilities from their circumstances.’ environments in ways that completely fail the pub test.

Special mention should also be made regarding potential unintentional implications of this proposed subsection for people who reside in Specialist Disability Accommodation. Arguably, SDA without any additional features is purpose built rather than modified, and could be considered to form part of the person’s environment. Yet the person’s ability to undertake activities within an SDA home environment is likely to be substantially higher than the person’s ability to undertake the same activities were SDA funding removed. Schedule 1 – Item Section 3 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 in 66 Repeal of force as of 6 May 2026 lists the first objective of the act as being to: Section 31, which (a) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to Australia’s obligations is: under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006 ([2008] ATS 12);

To date the NDIS has been described by so many people with disabilities as ‘lifechanging’ in helping them realise their rights under the Convention, including their right to respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy and freedom to make their own choices (Article 3) and their right to live in the community with equal choices to others and to full inclusion and participation in the community (Article 19).

Repealing Section 31 from the NDIS Act would catastrophically weaken the role that the NDIS plays in supporting these rights for people with the most severe disabilities, and risks completely undermining the ability of people with disabilities to exercise choice and control over their daily lives.

Schedule 1 item 19, At the very minimum, the timeframe of 21 days must be retained prososal to change (or shortened even) for requests to reassess a participant’s plan subsection 48(3), in situations involving critical safety issues or in situations where

allowing the CEO 90 a delay in reassessment could result in an irreversible worsening days instead of 21 of the participant’s impairment (for example, due to a delay in days to respond to a approving funding for complex seating). request for reassessment of a participant’s plan. Schedule 1 item All of these sections and subsections need revision to ensure 18, proposal to that:

repeal subsection        -  The form/s of documentation that the CEO can require

48 (2) and replace participants to use for plan reassessment and

with alternative           -  The form/s of communication that the CEO must use in

sections 48 (2) reasonably attempting to contact Participants and add the section 48 (2A); are both explicitly required to be accessible to Participants and / or their nominated representatives, taking into account factors Schedule 1, item including disability, language, cultural factors, and trauma 83 proposal to add history. subsection 40(A) after Section 40 and Schedule 2, fraud measures

Schedule 1 In proposed Subsection 48 (A), a request for reassessment due section 21 to an alteration of the participant’s personal or environmental proposal to insert circumstances can only be made in the case of an unanticipated Subsection 48 (A) change in circumstances. The problem with this is that currently after Section 48. therapists and participants are reporting a trend towards participants being given 5 year plans with no provisions made for predictable changes to their circumstances. As an example, many plans are not providing anywhere near adequate funding for participants with cognitive disabilities who will have increased support needs on finishing school.

Subsection 48 (A) should only be added if there is also an addition to Section 31, requiring plans to take into account anticipated changes in participant circumstances within the life of the plan. Schedule 1 Item 34 The proposed Section 34 A is particularly concerning because: proposed section 34 A 1. Considering the previous NDIS CEO admitted that even 34A Determination NDIS planners did not time to read all of the medical reducing funding for evidence presented to them, there is no way that the groups of supports Minister has capacity to adequately consider the safety of participants in making broad percentage based cuts to particular classes of supports. The proposal to reduce capacity building budgets by 10% and social and community budgets by 30%, even though the funding

should only have been allocated in the first place based on the level of supports deemed necessary will result in catastrophic outcomes for participants, including:

• Suicide and suicide attempts

• Increased exposure to road safety risks

• Delays in reviews of equipment and care procedures leading to pressure ulcers and falls

• Increased risk of Participants experiencing violence and / or restrictive practices in cases where there informal support networks are stretched to breaking point

The imperative to reduce the overall cost of the NDIS is not so urgent that it justifies the above harms. Rather it justifies the hard, and slower work of reforming how participant support needs are determined.

2. There is no requirement in the proposed Subsection 34 A for the Minister to consider any of the factors listed in Section 34 that the CEO must consider when determining participant plans. There is an enormous conflict of interest in giving the Minister power to reduce whole classes of supports by a certain percentage. The Minister is under enormous political pressure to reduce the NDIS’s costs by a substantial amount, while at the same time minimising the number of voters who are dissatisfied with the cuts made. The Minister has a vested interest in achieving most cost savings through targeting supports relied upon by classes of participants who:

• are least able to advocate for themselves

• are the most isolated, with few informal social contacts to witness what happens to them

• are perceived by the general public as less deserving of support

regardless of the actual needs of these participants. Schedule 1, Item 1. The proposed Section 25A (3) allows that participants are not 92 proposal to required to undertake ‘appropriate medical treatments that the insert Section 25 A person cannot undertake for medical reasons’ elaborating on requirements for but does not go far enough. There is a risk that people may feel participants to coerced into undertaking treatments that are not culturally safe, have undertaken or that carry an unacceptable risk of adverse side effects, for ‘appropriate example the cardiovascular risks associated with many of the treatments’ atypical antipsychotics. ‘cannot undertake for medical reasons’

may leave the risk vs benefit considerations of particular interventions up to medical professionals, undermining individual informed consent. SCHEULE 3 In my view, adding the proposed subsection 59b is well and truly Proposed premature, because we don’t have anywhere near enough data subsection 59b to be confident that computer programs are able to take administrative action instead of human delegates.

Any computer program algorithms will presumably rely heavily on quantitative data generated through support needs assessments using a version of the I-CAN assessment that has been modified for use by the NDIA. Modification and testing of the modified version is expected to take 5 years commencing in mid 2026. Computerised plan development will need to be piloted and compared to plans developed by senior planners. Legislating to allow for generation of plans by computer software before this work is well underway risks repeating previous government disasters involving great harm to people caused by using algorithms to allocate funding.