NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Senate Submission Template

Access and Eligibility

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) Functional capacity A standardised assessment may not accurately capture fluctuating disability, masking, trauma, autism, fatigue, behaviour support needs or the cumulative impact of multiple disabilities. A child may appear capable during a short assessment but require significant support to function safely every day. The assessment tool has not yet been released and it is unclear who will administer it. Instead of clinical information from qualified allied health professionals who know the participant, access decisions may rely more heavily on a standardised assessment which may involve automation. Evidence will be required around the ‘Permanence’ of a person’s disability. Families may need to demonstrate that all reasonable treatment options have been attempted before accessing supports. This may disadvantage people where treatments are unavailable, unaffordable, unsafe, ineffective, culturally inappropriate or create

‘treatment’ before NDIS
significant side effects. To gain eligibility is confirmed. access, participants may have to undergo ‘treatment’ including surgeries, medication and therapies that may be harmful. It also raises difficult questions about where the line sits between an “appropriate” treatment and a treatment a person does not wish to undertake. Could a participant be required to trial certain medications before accessing certain supports? Could a family be expected to pursue surgery, intensive therapy or another intervention they believe is unsuitable, ineffective or carries unacceptable risks? Where people have a rare condition or diagnosis, many experts don’t know what treatment will be beneficial or effective. Because the NDIA can no longer take into account a person’s environment (i.e. financial status) this may mean that if they cannot afford a specific treatment (to prove that it is not effective), they cannot access the NDIS. New eligibility framework from 2028 People already receiving the NDIS may need to demonstrate they

(s9B and related continue to meet the new eligibility provisions)

criteria. Existing and future All current participants will need to be reassessed under the new functional capacity eligibility framework from January 2028.

Some may lose their access in this process. Families are concerned children and young people who currently receive support could lose access despite no improvement in their disability or functional capacity.

We don’t know what assessment tool will be used for this eligibility process, what evidence participants can provide and if there are any appeal rights.

There doesn’t appear to be any other Foundational Supports in place for those who are exited from the NDIS.

Functional capacity will be assessed with reduced consideration of environmental and personal circumstances (s9B) such as their financial circumstances, housing environment or the assistive technology they use.

Two children with the same diagnosis can have vastly different support needs depending on poverty, housing, transport, family supports, family

violence, culture, geography and access to services. Ignoring context risks underestimating need. Functional capacity Some people have good days and bad days. Others can temporarily mask difficulties during assessments. fluctuating or non- apparent disabilities (s9B) Families are concerned assessments may capture what a person can do briefly rather than what they can safely and consistently sustain in daily life. One day snapshots do not take into account the cumulative effect of disability and carer roles. To be funded, support Families may be forced to prove needs must arise exactly which impairment causes ‘directly’ from an NDIS- which support need. Supports that eligible impairment arise from the combined effect of (s34(1)(aa)) multiple disabilities, medical conditions or life circumstances may become harder to justify.

                        In reality, disability is rarely that neat.

                A child may have autism, intellectual

disability, ADHD, epilepsy and anxiety. Is the need for supervision called by the autism? The epilepsy? The intellectual disability? The anxiety? An unrelated early childhood

**trauma? Or the interaction between all of them?

A child with a rare genetic condition may experience a unique combination of physical, cognitive, behavioural and medical symptoms that do not fit neatly into diagnostic categories. The support need exists regardless, but determining exactly which diagnosis the support need ‘directly arises’ from may be next to impossible.

The question for families is whether support decisions should be based on the existence of a genuine support need, or on the ability to successfully attribute that need to a particular eligible diagnosis or impairment.

This creates a burden of evidence to prove a direct link between every support need and the disability / impairedment.

Stronger focus on This section states that people should moving people to not be eligible to access the NDIS if alternative funding there are other compensation or systems. insurance schemes that could support them instead. This may include the TAC, workplace compensation schemes and

Potentially even the Aged Care System.

Stronger evidence will Families may need to demonstrate that all reasonable treatment options have been attempted before accessing supports. This may disadvantage people where treatments are unavailable, unaffordable, ineffective, culturally inappropriate or create significant side effects. To gain access, participants may have to undergo ‘treatment’ including surgeries, medication and therapies that may be harmful.

It also raises difficult questions about where the line sits between an “appropriate” treatment and a treatment a person does not wish to undertake.

eCould a participant be required to trial certain medications before accessing certain supports? Could a family be expected to pursue surgery, intensive therapy or another intervention they believe is unsuitable, ineffective or carries unacceptable risks?

Where people have a rare condition or diagnosis, many experts don’t know

Planning and Funding

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) The Minister can make Funding for an entire category of You are not treating people with disabilities and their support determinations support could potentially be support systems, as people. You have decided that (decisions) which allow reduced for large groups of certain therapies and supports are not needed, are broad reductions to support participants without individual excessive and don’t need to be individualized. If someone categories (s34A) assessment of need. This would not was to attend a wedding and all the food served was occur on a ‘plan by plan’ basis. exactly the same, people with allergies would die, people Families may lose supports that are with dietary requirements would feel sick and people’s currently working well simply food preferences would be disregarded. because they fall within a targeted You are wanting to do the same thing here. I have children category. come into the studio wanting to play the guitar, others Not individualized. need to move their bodies to regulate, some love to write songs and others play the drums. All of these choices are

Right now, the Government is to get the best out of the kid to send them home feeling

proposing a 50 % cut to social, like their choices matter. Again I ask, why are you doing

civic, and community participation this?

funding, and a 10 % cut to some

daily activity

fundings. This would start from 1

October 2026 as new plan

reassessments are completed. But

this could be applied at up to 99% to any support category in an NDIS plan.

The only limit around these cuts is that the Minister needs to ‘have regard’ for the safety of participants.

Minister may impose Funding limits or caps can be As an allied health professional that had their price guidelines, including for placed on support categories or capped last year, this is atrocious, It’s like you want to cohorts (s33(2EA)) cohorts of participants and may be fade out all valuable research and evidence based based on category averages rather support. You say you don’t but when you cut or cap than individual circumstances. prices, and the cost of living goes up, what can we do? This would allow the Minister to set How do we then survive to help our families? an upper limit for a particular support. For example,

people with Intellectual Disability cannot receive more than 12 hours of psychology funding per year, or
children under 9 years of age can only receive up to 3

hours of allied health

support per week.

Families caring for children with complex disability may be unable to access support levels that genuinely reflect their needs. Move toward more Plans may increasingly reflect what standardised planning and the NDIS funding model or assessment-driven budgets assessment tool / report generates rather than what is actually required for safety, participation and family sustainability. We still don’t know how the Functional Capacity Assessment In the New Planning Framework will be administered and how that report will translate into a Participant Statement of Supports. Less individualized support provision. Changes to the Reasonable The threshold for what counts as You need to look at what you ask us as therapists to and Necessary Criteria. “reasonable and necessary” is address in our reports, the choice and control The Bill changes the tests being rewritten. opportunities and the reasonable and necessary planners must apply when The Bill increases the amount of supports we offer. You are taking all of the choice and deciding whether a support support the NDIA can expect control away. It’s heartbreaking. is funded. Cost, informal families, carers and informal supports and parental supports to provide before funding responsibility may play a supports. For children, greater larger role in funding emphasis is placed on parental decisions. responsibility, including

Repeal of section 31 - Principles relating to plans (Schedule 1, Item 66)

Supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIA) include supervision, personal care, eotional support, transport and behavioural support. Supports may be harder to fund where they primarily reduce parental workload, improve household efficiency or replace care the NDIA believes families should provide.

There will be a hierarchy of evidence, giving greater weight to published and peer-reviewed research than a participant’s personal experience with a support. Where research evidence is limited, the NDIA may still decide not to fund a support, even if the participant reports that it is beneficial.

Repeal of section 31 – Section 31 currently contains principles recognising participants as individuals with unique goals, aspirations and support needs. The Bill repeals most of these principles. While government states relevant principles are being relocated elsewhere, many advocates believe important protections supporting genuinely individualised planning have been weakened or lost.

These principals help the NDIA and the courts to understand how to

Implement

and protect the

intention of the scheme. Proposed reduction of Supports used for community access, social connection, voluting, recreation, skill development and participation may be substantially reduced. Families are concerned children and adults could become more isolated, s segregated and disconnected from community life.

supports that appear ‘non- essential’ on paper may actually be what allows a person to maintain friendships, participate in community activities, learn life skills, develop independence and avoid social isolation. Right now the Government is proposing a 50% cut to social, civic, and community participation funding, and a 10 % cut to some daily activity funding. This would start from 1 October 2026 as new plan reassessments are completed.

Right now, we don’t know if this will apply to Core: Social and Community Participation, and Capacity Building: Increased Social and Community Participation.

Children and young people may become more reliant on parents and carers for transport, community access, social activities, employment preparation and daily participation. Greater emphasis on lower- Previous planning criteria required Last year I was asked to submit a survey about music therapy, to the NDIS. One of the questions was about what would be an alternative or lower cost activity, to do instead of music therapy. How insulting. There isn’t one, which is why we exist. Which is why we have a Masters, why we continue developing our skills with PD and supervision, why the families we work with chose us and not some random who can strum a guitar. It’s questions like this that de-value what we have done to become a music therapist. Therefore, the cost of the support becomes the major determining factor rather than if they are effective or not. For example, a cheaper support worker arrangement, therapy approach or piece of equipment may be available, but it may not deliver the same level of independence, safety or participation. Families may wish to explain the risks that exist where a cheaper support that is less effective is funded.

Disproportionate Impact on Certain Disability Cohorts

Government modelling suggests some disability groups may lose a larger proportion of their current supports because a greater share of their plans is allocated to social and community participation.

Will this affect children more than adults? Right now children may have funding for ‘Social and Community Participation’ where that funding is actually provided so that a parent can take them to the supermarket or to a doctor’s appointment. Those outings are not focused around social and community participation and should not be subject to funding reductions simply because they occur outside the home.

When it comes to children and young people, how does the Agency intend to distinguish between Assistance with Daily Life and Social and Community Participation?

What will the gender impact be in situations where women disproportionately absorb unpaid caring burden?

group-based support

access and increase pressure person in the room, they would be at risk of getting hurt. arrangements toward shared or group-based
you can’t just lump people together and hope it works because it’s cheaper. It’s not safe, not respectful, not looking at functioning capacity or the goals of the participant, at all. solution: listen to the participants, families and therapists that run groups and have individual sessions. understand what they want and don’t just disregard that. you have had numerous requests to attend meetings, to listen to families and providers and you are yet to turn up or respond. claims must be made self-managing families and small within 90 days (currently 2 providers may lose funding or years). commencing 1st payment because paperwork was december 2026. delayed during illness, crisis, hospitalisation or caring responsibilities. unspent funds removed at many ndis plans are currently what if a child requires crutches in one plan but then plan renewal (s50a) being ‘continued’ or extended. their condition gets worse and they need a wheelchair. in the future, even when a plan is they don’t have the funds rolled over to use. You can’t take away funds that are rightfully theirs. rolled over or not reassessed
because the participant is
considered to have ‘stable support
needs’) their plan will be ‘renewed’
meaning they will receive the same
nds plan again with a new start
date. Unused funding will no longer
be carried over into the new plan
which will contain the same
supports and budget (less any one-
of items like assistive technology). those ‘renewed’ plan is not a

Reviews, Appeals and Participant Rights

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section)

Restrictions on Families may struggle to access timely plan changes when Reassessments (s48A) informal supports collapse, The ability to request an equipment fails or a child’s needs unscheduled plan increase unexpectedly. reassessment (Change of When almost all NDIS plans are Circumstances) will continued or rolled over, how does become far more difficult to a participant request a plan request. (Must be reassessment if they haven’t had unanticipated, significant one for many years? For adults who an ongoing). COC requests have stable needs this is more may be processed only in reasonable, however children may extenuating circumstances. require plan reassessments simply Functional change must because they have grown older and substantially reduce daily the level of typical parental activity. responsibility for their age may have changed. We would expect the core

Future support needs

Government has indicated future support needs assessments may be reviewable, but tribunals may have reduced ability to substitute their own assessment.

This concerns me greatly considering there are many plans with the families I work with that are underfunded. To not even have the opportunity anymore, to have another review, is a scary place for those families to be. You don’t give them enough, well tough luck, you can’t say anything . It feels so horrible that you would try to silence people with disabilities to such an extent. The people who write the plans don’t read the reports, don’t really listen to the families, so then the plans are underfunded. At the moment they have the opportunity to appeal, but it’s not easy anyway. You rock up with all the lawyers and of course they feel intimidated. All because they weren’t heard in the first place by people who are not even trained in disability, telling them they know what their child needs more than the parents.

Solution: listen to the participants and their families and there won’t be the need for money to be spent on your 3 lawyers. Also only employ people at the the NDIA who have a minimum cert 4 in disability.

Only the participant, plan nominee or child representative will be able to request reassessment (as opposed to your plan manager or support coordinator).

**Timeframe for the NDIA to decide whether to complete a plan reassessment will extend from 21 days to 90 days.

Compliance, Administration and Safeguards Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) life Plan suspension and If the NDIA requests revocation for non-contact information related to planning (s40A / s30(1A)) and a participant does not respond, the Agency could suspend their plan. If there is still no contact after 90 days, participant status could potentially be revoked. Families may wish to consider what could happen if letters are missed, contact details are outdated, English is not a first language, or a participant is experiencing illness, hospitalisation, homelessness, family violence or another crisis. Expansion of mandatory Participants may lose access provider registration to trusted workers or experience workforce

Shortages, particularly in
Regional areas.
People who directly employ
Their support workers (Service
For One) may not be able to
Continue working with their
Trusted supports.
A sole trader or contractor may
Be considered a ‘provider’ and
Need to undergo NDIS
Registration to be able to
Continue to provide support -
This may be a costly and
Difficult process.
What would happen if you were
Forced to use only NDIS
Registered providers?
There will be a focus on
Mandatory registration for
Providers delivering “high risk”
Supports. For participants
Who are children, parents are
Often heavily involved in
Recruiting, training,
Supervising and monitoring
Support workers. Families may
Wish to consider whether
Mandatory registration provides
Additional safeguards or simply
Reduces the pool of available
Providers.

We also don’t have a clear
- definition of ‘High Risk
  - Supports’ yet.
Increased record-keeping
- Families may face financial obligations and debt
- penalties if records are
- incomplete, misunderstood or lost during periods of stress, illness or crisis.
Stronger NDIA compliance
- and enforcement powers
- The NDIA would gain stronger powers to investigate how NDIS funding is being used, request information and documents, and issue fines where it believes NDIS rules have been broken. Families may wish to consider what protections exist if an honest mistake is made and how easy it would be to challenge a decision.
Expanded NDIA information
- gathering powers
- The Agency can require participants, nominees, providers and others to provide documents, answer questions or attend a meeting with the Agency within 14 days’ notice. Failure to comply may result in legal consequences. Families may wish to consider whether appropriate safeguards exist and whether people will understand their rights and

Obligations When Responding to Requests

Automation of Administrative Decisions

Automated processes may improve efficiency but also create risks where errors occur, particularly for participants with complex circumstances or where incorrect data is on file with the Agency.

The NDIA could use computer systems to carry out some administrative tasks and decisions that are currently performed by staff.

We don’t know what kinds of tasks, decisions and actions would be automated.

Some decisions currently made by humans would be made by an algorithm or automated process.

These decisions would still have the current appeal rights.

Humans make mistakes. Computers make mistakes too. The difference is scale. If a delegate makes a flawed decision, one participant may be affected. If an algorithm gets it wrong, thousands of participants could receive the same incorrect outcome before anyone realizes there’s a problem.

Children and Young People

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know)

section)

Children increasingly Families may be redirected away Thriving Kids isn’t set up yet and from NSW has stated, directed toward from NDIS supports into systems they will only be using people that work with an NGO, so Foundational Supports / that are not yet fully established. there goes all NSW allied health therapies that are sole Thriving Kids pathways trader or small businesses. Why would you do that? We know these families and are just flicked to the side? Solution: Include families and allied health therapists in the discussion, Not the big companies, not the NGO’s that are looking to profit from this, but the actual people.

Increased reliance on The NDIS cannot fund support that parental responsibility reduce the carer burden on parents arguments. There is a below what is typical for children of change to the Reasonable the same age. This takes into and Necessary criteria account transport, personal care, stating the NDIA must emotional support, behaviour remember parents are support and supervision. The NDIA must look at whether funding support like support workers would expose the participant or someone else to risk of harm

Families may be expected to absorb additional caring responsibilities regardless of work commitments, health, finances or sustainability. The NDIA would also be prevented from funding supports simply because they make family life

Governance and Ministerial Powers

Proposed change (Bill)

What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know

section) Greater reliance on Significant decisions about eligibility, budgets, support categories and delivered rules planning could potentially be changed through instruments and rules rather than through the full Parliamentary process. Minister may temporarily The Bill allows the Minister to Way too much control for the Minister. tify how parts of the Act temporarily change how certain parts of the NDIS Act operate without having to pass a new Act of Parliament first or uses the usual parliamentary process. families may wish to consider whether important changes should always be debated and approved by Parliament.

Minister has greater
While the NDIS Review recommended
influence over pricing
arrangements
an independent organisation should
set pricing (such as IHACPA) this bill
transfers pricing power directly to the
NDIS Minister with advice from the
Agency.
Self-Managers would still be able to
pay above the Pricing Caps.
Different pricing caps can also be set
for different providers (i.e. registered
and unregistered).
What conflict of interest exists when
the Minister responsible for controlling
(and right now reducing) NDIS
expenditure is also given the power to
set the prices the Scheme will pay?

Informal Supports and Carers Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) Increased reliance on When formal supports are reduced, informal supports and the work does not disappear. It is unpaid carers often transferred to parents, grandparents, siblings and other family members, disproportionately impacting women. How will this impact women with disability in coercive control situations?

How will this impact women in paid employment?