Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Introduction
I write to express serious concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
The NDIS was established on the principles of individualised support, participant choice and control, and co-design with people with disability. Many of the proposed amendments undermine these foundational principles.
The Bill in its current form risks fundamentally altering the nature of the Scheme. It shifts decision-making power away from participants and Parliament and concentrates it in the hands of the Minister and the NDIA, with insufficient safeguards, consultation requirements, transparency mechanisms, or review rights.
Excessive Ministerial Powers and Reduced Parliamentary Oversight
One of the most concerning aspects of the Bill is the expansion of Ministerial powers to determine funding arrangements, support categories, pricing mechanisms, and other critical aspects of the Scheme through delegated legislation and administrative instruments.
These powers would allow significant changes to participant funding and support arrangements without requiring full parliamentary scrutiny or meaningful consultation with people with disability.
The Senate should be cautious about granting such broad discretionary powers where the consequences directly affect the lives, independence, and safety of hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability.
Major decisions regarding what supports can be funded, how funding is allocated, and whether categories of supports can be reduced should remain subject to strong legislative safeguards and parliamentary oversight.
The Bill should be amended to ensure that:
● significant changes to participant entitlements cannot be made solely through Ministerial instruments; ● any proposed reductions to support categories require parliamentary scrutiny;
● consultation with people with disability and their representative organisations is mandatory beforechanges are made; ● independent impact assessments are published before major changes take effect.
Erosion of Choice and Control
Choice and control are not optional features of the NDIS. They are the foundation upon which the Scheme was built.
Several aspects of the Bill risk reducing participants’ ability to determine how, when, and by whom they are supported.
Proposed changes to provider registration, support arrangements, plan management, and funding controls may unintentionally force participants into more standardised service models that do not reflect individual needs.
Many participants rely on:
● trusted support workers; ● small specialist providers; ● culturally appropriate services; ● self-management arrangements; ● flexible supports tailored to their circumstances.
The Bill creates a risk that participants will have fewer options available and less flexibility in how supports are delivered.
Reforms intended to improve safety and accountability must not come at the expense of participant autonomy.
The Committee should recommend amendments that explicitly protect:
● participant choice and control; ● self-management; ● direct employment arrangements; ● access to small and specialist providers; ● continuity of trusted support relationships.
Risk of Funding Decisions Being Driven by Budget Objectives Rather Than Individual Need
The NDIS was designed as an individualised scheme where support decisions are based on a participant’s functional needs and circumstances.
The Bill introduces mechanisms that could permit broad funding reductions across categories of support.
This represents a significant departure from the original intent of the NDIS.
Funding decisions should continue to be made based on individual circumstances rather than broad budgetary settings.
There is a genuine risk that category-wide reductions could disproportionately impact participants with complex needs, those living in rural and remote areas, people requiring specialist supports, and individuals with limited informal support networks.
Any power to alter funding arrangements should be accompanied by:
● transparent criteria; ● published evidence; ● independent oversight; ● merits review rights; ● safeguards ensuring that participants retain access to supports necessary for safety, independence and community participation.
Threat to Review Rights and Natural Justice
The NDIS has always relied upon a participant’s right to challenge decisions that affect their supports,
funding and quality of life. The Bill creates concern that significant decisions may increasingly be madethrough broad Ministerial determinations, automated decision-making processes, pricing mechanisms and future legislative instruments rather than individualised planning decisions. Where funding reductions or
support limitations occur through these mechanisms, participants may have limited practical ability tochallenge the outcome based on their individual circumstances. Parliament should ensure that every decision that affects a participant’s access to supports, funding levels, or plan outcomes remains subject to transparent reasons, internal review, independent merits review and appeal rights. No participant should lose supports through a process that cannot be effectively challenged.
Risks of Automated Decision-Making and Standardised Planning
The Bill's provisions enabling increased automated decision-making and standardised assessmentprocesses raise significant concerns for people with disability, particularly children and adults with autism.
Disability is not a uniform experience. Two people with the same diagnosis can have vastly different functional capacities, support needs, environmental barriers, communication abilities, family circumstances and goals.
This is especially true for autism.
Autism is a spectrum condition, meaning there is enormous variation between individuals. Some autistic
people require relatively low levels of support, while others require intensive daily assistance withcommunication, emotional regulation, personal care, safety, community participation and learning.
Many autistic children experience significant challenges that fluctuate over time. A child may require substantial support during periods of school transition, family stress, mental health challenges, puberty, behavioural escalation, communication difficulties or changes in educational settings. Their support needs can increase or decrease depending on their environment and circumstances.
A standardised or automated planning system risks reducing these complex realities to a series ofpredetermined categories, scores or assessment outcomes.
No algorithm can fully understand:
● the cumulative impact of multiple disabilities or co-occurring conditions; ● the protective role that early intervention plays in preventing future crises; ● the unique communication profile of an autistic child; ● family capacity and caregiver stress; ● the impact of school exclusion, bullying or social isolation; ● the long-term consequences of underfunding therapy and capacity-building supports.
An automated system may identify two children as having the same diagnosis and similar assessment
scores while failing to recognise that one child requires significantly greater support to remain safe,participate in education, regulate behaviour, communicate effectively or engage with their community.
The NDIS was intentionally designed as an individualised scheme because disability support cannot be effectively delivered through a one-size-fits-all model.
Planning decisions should be made through a holistic assessment of the participant’s circumstances by appropriately qualified professionals who can consider the person’s functional needs, family situation, goals and environmental factors.
Automation may be useful for administrative processes, but it should never replace individualiseddecision-making regarding a person’s support needs, funding levels or access to essential services.
If automated decision-making is retained in the Bill, there must be strong safeguards, including:
● mandatory human review of all substantive decisions affecting access or funding;
● transparency regarding any algorithms, assessment tools or automated systems used; ● publication of error rates and independent auditing processes; ● rights to appeal and merits review;
● protections ensuring that automated systems cannot override professional clinical evidence orparticipant-specific circumstances.
The Senate should ensure that efficiency is not prioritised over fairness. A system designed to save time or reduce costs must not come at the expense of children and adults whose needs cannot be accurately captured by standardised assessments or automated decision-making tools.
Inadequate Consultation and Co-Design
The disability community has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the principle “Nothing About Us
Without Us.“
Many of the most significant aspects of this reform package are intended to be determined later through rules, operational guidance, assessment tools, pricing frameworks and administrative arrangements.
This means Parliament is being asked to approve broad legislative powers before the disability community can properly assess their practical impact.
This approach undermines genuine consultation.
People with disability cannot meaningfully participate in the development of reforms when critical details remain unknown.
The Committee should recommend that:
● the inquiry period be extended; ● exposure drafts of all relevant rules and instruments be released; ● accessible consultation be undertaken nationally; ● Disabled People’s Organisations be properly funded to participate in the reform process; ● no major reforms commence until genuine co-design has occurred.
Human Rights Concerns
Australia has obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Several elements of the Bill raise concerns regarding:
● independent living and community inclusion; ● participation in decision-making; ● equality and non-discrimination; ● freedom from neglect and exploitation; ● access to social protection and support services.
Changes that reduce access to supports, increase administrative barriers, or diminish participant autonomy risk undermining Australia’s commitments under the Convention.
Before the Bill proceeds, an independent human rights assessment should be undertaken to evaluate its compatibility with Australia’s disability rights obligations.
Financial sustainability should not mean diminished choice and control, or fewer rights for people with disability.
Financial sustainability is an important objective, and all Australians would support measures that address fraud, waste and exploitation of the Scheme. However, sustainability cannot be achieved by weakening participant rights, reducing choice and control, limiting review rights, or concentrating decision-making power in the hands of Ministers and administrators with insufficient oversight.
The overwhelming majority of NDIS participants are people with disability who rely on the Scheme to access essential supports that allow them to live safely, participate in their communities, access education and employment, and maintain their independence. They should not bear the consequences of failures in regulation, compliance or provider oversight.
The public discussion surrounding NDIS sustainability has often focused on fraud and misuse of funds. While fraud must be addressed wherever it occurs, there is little evidence that people with disability themselves are driving these costs. Rather, concerns that have been identified by governments, regulators and inquiries
have largely related to provider misconduct, inappropriate claiming practices, market failures andweaknesses in oversight.
It would be fundamentally unfair if reforms designed to address the actions of a small number of providers resulted in reduced supports, increased administrative burdens, diminished choice and control, or fewer rights for people with disability. Participants should not lose essential supports because some providers have exploited weaknesses in the system.
Recommendations
I respectfully recommend that the Senate Committee:
1. Oppose the Bill in its current form. 2. Require stronger limits on Ministerial powers. 3. Ensure major changes remain subject to parliamentary oversight. 4. Protect participant choice and control through explicit legislative safeguards. 5. Remove or substantially constrain powers that permit broad funding reductions. 6. Guarantee meaningful consultation before future changes are implemented. 7. Publish all modelling, impact assessments and proposed rules before reforms proceed. 8. Conduct an independent human rights assessment of the Bill.
9. Extend the inquiry process to allow genuine engagement with people with disability and theirrepresentative organisations. 10. Ensure no reform proceeds unless it demonstrably improves outcomes for people with disability rather than simply reducing expenditure growth.
Conclusion
The NDIS exists because Australians recognised that people with disability have the right to live with dignity, independence, and full participation in community life.
The solution to fraud is stronger regulation, targeted compliance, better monitoring and more effective enforcement against those who misuse public funds. The solution is not to make it harder for people with disability to access the individualised supports they need.
A sustainable NDIS must remain true to its original purpose: supporting people with disability to live ordinary
lives with dignity, independence and inclusion. Financial sustainability and participant rights are notcompeting objectives. A truly sustainable Scheme must achieve both.
The Senate should ensure that any reforms strengthen the NDIS while preserving the principles upon which
it was founded. The Bill, in its current form, does not achieve that balance and should be substantiallyamended before proceeding.