Submission 333
DR MONIQUE
RYANKOOYONG’S INDEPENDENT
29 May 2026
Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most significant social reforms in Australia’s history. It was built on a simple, shared creed: that people with disability deserve the same opportunities as every other Australian to live a full life, with dignity, choice and control over the supports they need. For hundreds of thousands of Australians, and their families and carers, the NDIS is the only port in the storm. It is what makes independence possible. It is what allows a child to go to school, a parent to return to work, a person to live in their own home rather than an institution.
I make this submission because I believe in that scheme, and because I am deeply concerned that the Bill before the Committee, as currently drafted, risks undermining it.
This submission draws on two key sources:
-
The amendments I have tabled in the House of Representatives, developed in close consultation with legal and disability policy experts including the Justice and Equity Centre, People with Disability Australia, Occupational Therapists Australia, Inclusion Australia, and the Summer Foundation. I have attached a copy of those amendments for the Committee’s benefit (Attachment A); and
-
Feedback gathered from over 60 community members who attended consultation sessions I held on 18 and 19 May 2026, one online and one in person at the Camberwell Library, representing NDIS participants, carers, families, and service providers; and,
-
A significant number of constituent emails and related correspondence. I support a sustainable, well-governed NDIS. But sustainability must never become a euphemism for cutting supports to people who depend on them. As currently drafted, the Bill contains provisions that risk material harm to people with disability, undermine the rights-based foundations of the Scheme, and vest excessive discretionary power in the responsible minister without adequate parliamentary oversight.
This submission sets out the amendments I am proposing, the community evidence that underpins them, and the principles I urge the Committee to apply in its deliberations on this legislation.
Community Consultation Findings
The community consultations I held in Kooyong on 18 and 19 May 2026 revealed deep concern about the pace and design of these reforms. The key findings are summarised below.
Pace and Process
Participants across both sessions consistently raised concerns that reforms are being progressed too quickly, without sufficient consultation or transparency. Many noted that the short consultation period and barriers to engaging with formal submission processes had effectively excluded large parts of the disability community from meaningful participation. I note that submissions were only open for this inquiry for two weeks. I see that as insufficient for members of the disability community to meaningfully and accessibly engage with a 400+ page legislative package.
Dr Monique Ryan MP
145 Comberwell Rd,
Hawthorn Eos’t VIC 3123
l\o 103) 9326 2900 B montque.ryan.mP@Oph.gov.ou (Y moniqueryon.com.ou
INDEPENDENT FEDERAL MEMBER FOR KOOYONG ®00 @mon4kooyong
Submission 333
Rights-Based Foundations at Risk
There was a strong and consistent view that the Bill represents a shift from a rights-based scheme toward a cost containment model. Attendees emphasised that the NDIS was designed around the principles of inclusion, dignity, choice and control, and that these values must remain central to any reform process. Concerns were raised about stigmatising public narratives around fraud and scheme sustainability that undermine the standing of participants in public discourse.
Impacts on Participants and Families
Community members reported that funding changes already are, and will continue to, contribute to increased isolation and risk for people with disability. Specific concerns raised included:
-
A lack of appropriate pathways for children, particularly those with progressive conditions;
-
Inappropriate or insensitive reassessment processes that may reduce supports despite declining functional capacity;
-
Difficulty navigating the system and inadequate navigation supports;
-
The financial and emotional burden of obtaining reports that are not ultimately used in decision-making;
-
Insufficient notice of planning meetings and limited ability to participate fully in those processes; and
-
Safeguarding risks where individuals are left without adequate supports.
Provider and Workforce Sustainability
Providers attending both sessions reported high compliance and audit costs affecting financial viability. Mandatory provider registration was identified as likely to increase costs and reduce service availability, particularly in thin markets. Concern was expressed about workforce sustainability and the risk of provider exits, especially in rural and regional areas and in specialist disability services.
Governance and Accountability
Community members raised particular concern about increased Ministerial discretion under the Bill and a perceived reduction in oversight. Calls were made for minimum consultation periods, stronger accountability mechanisms, and decisions informed by clinical expertise and lived experience.
Proposed Amendments and Rationale
I have tabled 2 seconding reading amendments, which I moved and divided on in the House of Representatives in the sitting week commencing 25 May 2026. I have also circulated 14 detailed amendments addressing the most significant concerns raised in community consultation and through expert legal and policy advice. The key amendments are described below.
Amendment (2) of Attachment A: Delayed Commencement Pending Foundational Supports
Recommendation 26 of the NDIS Independent Review states clearly that changes to access and budget-setting processes can only be implemented once recommended foundational supports are in place outside the NDIS (action 26.2). The Bill, as drafted, does not give effect to this condition.
This amendment would require the Minister to table a statement in each House of Parliament setting out the status, funding, and operational readiness of foundational supports, including Thriving Kids, in each jurisdiction before the key substantive provisions of the Bill (Schedule 1, Parts 4–9) could commence. This directly addresses community concern that people likely to exit or be excluded from the NDIS will be left without adequate alternative supports.
Submission 333
Amendment (3) of Attachment A: Statutory Review
Community consultation identified a significant information gap: participants, providers and carers have no means of holding the Government to account for the real-world impacts of these reforms once they are implemented. This amendment would require the Minister to commission an independent review of the reforms 12 months after commencement, by a reviewer independent of the NDIA and the Department.
The review must assess: access to the NDIS; participant outcomes; review and appeal rights; provider viability; service delivery in thin markets; and the interaction of the reforms with foundational supports. The reviewer’s report must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receipt.
Amendments (4)-(6) of Attachment A: Conditions for Requesting Reassessment
The Bill proposes to repeal section 48(2) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, removing the existing right of participants to request a plan reassessment at any time. The replacement provision is narrowly drawn and does not include a participant’s supports becoming insufficient to meet their reasonable and necessary needs as a triggering condition.
This creates an unacceptable gap. Where a Support Determination reduces a participant’s funding below what is reasonable and necessary, and the participant’s plan is auto-renewed under section 50A carrying that insufficiency forward, the participant would have no pathway to request reassessment if their disability and circumstances are otherwise unchanged.
These amendments add plan insufficiency as a condition triggering the right to request reassessment, consistent with the fundamental design principle that NDIS supports must be reasonable and necessary to a participant’s individual needs.
Amendment (7) of Attachment A: Restricting Support Determinations to Social and Community Participation
The Minister’s public statements, including at the National Press Club, indicated that Support Determinations under section 34A would be directed to social and community participation supports. However, as drafted, the Bill gives the Minister power to reduce funding across virtually any support category, including daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation, and behaviour support.
This amendment would legally restrict Support Determinations to social and community participation supports, holding the Government to its own stated policy intent and protecting against the unannounced withdrawal of other essential supports.
Amendment (8) of Attachment A: Removing Permission to Fund Below Reasonable and Necessary
Proposed subsection 34A(5) expressly permits a Support Determination to operate even where it results in funding falling below the cost of supports already assessed as reasonable and necessary. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the design of the NDIS and directly contradicts the objects of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. This amendment removes that subsection.
Amendment (9) of Attachment A: Parliamentary Approval for Material Funding Reductions
Support Determinations under section 34A are legislative in form but can have severe practical consequences for large numbers of participants. The Bill provides for only a disallowance model, requiring parliamentary opponents to act within a timeframe to defeat a measure. This places the burden on Parliament to block Government action, rather than on the Government to justify it.
This amendment would require that where a Support Determination is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding, the Minister must table reasons, an impact assessment, financial analysis, and a consultation summary. The determination would not take effect unless each House of Parliament passes a resolution approving it within 15 sitting days of tabling.
Submission 333
This is consistent with the concerns raised in community consultation about excessive Ministerial discretion and inadequate parliamentary oversight of consequential decisions affecting people with disability.
Amendments (11)–(12) of Attachment A: 3.7 Appropriate Treatment and NDIS Eligibility
Proposed section 25A introduces a new precondition to establishing ‘permanence’ for NDIS eligibility: a person must have undergone ‘appropriate treatment’ before their impairment can be considered permanent. The Bill’s drafting would override the Federal Court’s decision in National Disability Insurance Scheme v Davis [2022] FCA 1002, which established that ‘available’ treatment means treatment a person can, in reality, access, including in light of their financial circumstances.
As drafted, this creates a harsh threshold. Individuals may be excluded from the NDIS because a treatment exists in theory, even if it is unaffordable, inaccessible, or clinically risky in their specific circumstances. Community consultation highlighted particular concern for people with progressive conditions who may be unable to access the NDIS while they are in the process of seeking treatment that will slow but not reverse deterioration in their functional capacity.
These amendments remove the proposed override of the Davis decision and add explicit protections: a person is not required to undertake treatment that is unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable, not clinically appropriate, or associated with unreasonable risk.
Amendments (13)–(14) of Attachment A: Independent Pricing Advice and Thin Market Protections
Proposed section 45C gives the Minister broad power to set maximum prices for NDIS supports by legislative instrument. The NDIS Independent Review (Recommendation 11) explicitly recommended transferring pricing advice to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to strengthen transparency and alignment with the broader health and disability sector.
These amendments - a more modest safeguard than full implementation of the Review’s recommendation - would require the Minister to obtain and publish independent pricing advice before making a determination, and to consider the effect of pricing decisions on support availability in thin markets and regional areas. Community consultation identified thin market sustainability as a key concern, particularly for participants in rural and regional Australia
Submission 333
Conclusion
I support a financially sustainable and well-governed NDIS. The amendments I have proposed are designed to give effect to that objective while protecting the rights-based foundations of the Scheme and ensuring that people w ith disability are not harmed by reforms implemented ahead of adequate alternative supports being in place. The concerns raised in community consultation in Kooyong are consistent with those heard across Australia: participants, families, carers and providers support reform but are deeply worried about a scheme drifting away from its founding principles of choice, control, dignity and inclusion. I urge the Committee to recommend adoption of the amendments set out in this submission, and to consider the follow ing overarching principles in its deliberations:
-
Foundational supports must be in place, funded and accessible before eligibility or access reforms take effect;
-
Parliamentary scrutiny of significant funding reductions must be meaningful and proactive, not merely reactive;
-
The right to seek plan reassessment must be preserved w here a participant’s supports no longer meet their reasonable and necessary needs;
-
Eligibility determinations must account for the real-world circumstances of individuals, including their financial capacity to access treatment;
-
Pricing decisions must be made with independent advice and with explicit regard to thin market sustainability; and
-
An independent statutory review should be mandated to assess the impacts of these reforms w ithin 12 months of full commencement.
I also urge the Committee to extend the consultation timeframe so that members of the disability community, carers and parents have at least four weeks to provide a written submission to this inquiry.