Ministerial Support Determinations (Individual advocacy)

Submission 370

Vision  Australia  Submission:  National

Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted to: Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Date: 29 May 2026

Submission approved by: Chris Edwards, Chief Mission Officer

Submission 370

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill –

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Submission prepared by Caitlin McMorrow, NDIS and Aged Care Funding Specialist

Lead

Introduction

Vision Australia appreciates the opportunity to provide this submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee as part of the inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. We are supportive of the Government’s intention to ensure the sustainability of the NDIS for current and future Australians with significant and permanent disability and we particularly acknowledge the challenges that are presented by the unanticipated growth of the Scheme. It is necessary, however, that the policy reforms that are implemented to address these concerns are not applied to the detriment of certain

disability  cohorts  or  individuals, whether  intentionally  or  otherwise. The  Bill  confers

considerable powers upon the Minister to make decisions that will significantly alter the Scheme at an operational level and in so doing, have substantial impacts on the lives of people with disability. Whilst the exponential growth of the Scheme must be managed, we remain

concerned that some of the reforms proposed in this  Bill  will further undermine equity,

consistency and fairness within the Scheme, rather than improving it.

Ministerial Support Determinations

Vision Australia recognises the importance of ensuring the sustainability of the NDIS both now

and  for  future  generations. We do  not, however, consider  that  the use  of support

determinations as proposed in the Bill are an appropriate mechanism for correcting over

funding  in  certain groups  of  supports. There has been  longstanding and  systemic

inconsistency in the application of NDIS funding decisions and this cannot be remedied by enforcing universal and oversimplified reductions in support. This is an ill-conceived financial control measure that lacks procedural fairness and would unduly expose many participants to the risks of isolation and psychological harm. This is particularly pertinent given that support determinations are not subject to parliamentary oversight and by their nature, attract no right to merits review. While the Bill states a general requirement that the Minister must consider participant safety in making such a determination, this is likely to afford little reassurance, given there are no other meaningful restraints on the scope of this power. It is not reasonable to assume that every Scheme participant has been grossly overfunded, given that many have plans that have remained stable and consistent for several years. It would be more equitable and effective to conduct reviews of supports for those participants whose plan values have increased extensively over time, rather than penalising every participant for the inconsistency of Scheme decision-making as a whole. Moreover, in view of the intent to reduce supports for Assistance with Social and Community Participation by 50%, we are of the view that it is counterproductive to simultaneously reduce investment in therapy services. Many participants will now be required to develop additional compensatory skills to address the shortfall caused by reductions in other forms of support.

Finally, our understanding of the proposed legislative provisions is that the use of Support Determinations will not reduce the amount available in participant plans, but will simply curtail the amount which can be spent. As such, a participant may be assessed by a planner as requiring $10,000 in core supports, but be permitted to spend only 50%, or $5,000 of that amount. From an operational perspective, this is hugely problematic and administratively

Submission 370

burdensome for both participants and service providers to manage. There is already significant complexity involved in ensuring that supports are delivered strictly in line with funding periods across the life of the plan. This will add an additional layer of difficulty, particularly with regard to claims and payments for supports where the amount shown in the plan does not reflect the funding available in practice.

Unscheduled Plan Reassessments

Vision Australia supports the proposition in the Bill that a plan reassessment may only be requested by the participant, their nominee or by a child representative. We are concerned, however, at the proposal that the CEO should have 90 days to make a decision regarding a plan reassessment, instead of the 21 day timeframe that exists currently. Given that plan reassessments will now be contingent on a substantial change in the participant’s support needs, it seems counterintuitive that the timeframe for granting such a request should be extended from 3 weeks to 3 months. This provision has the potential to place participants at significant risk if implemented in its current form.

We also refer to the legislative note that has been added to the new Section 48(2), to the effect that if a reassessment request is not made in the form approved by the CEO, or does not contain all requisite information or documents, the CEO is not required to make a decision on the request. While this is logical, it is our view that there should be a legislated commitment that the CEO will make reasonable efforts to inform the requesting party if information is incomplete or in the incorrect form.

The Bill proposes several criteria which must be satisfied in order for a plan reassessment to take place. There must be:  A significant reduction in functional capacity related to a change in the participant’s recognised impairments, or  a significant reduction in functional capacity arising from a change in their personal or environmental circumstances including living arrangements, education arrangements, work arrangements or informal supports.

In the context of these new criteria, it is unclear as to how high cost assistive technology purchases will be managed outside of the usual NDIS planning cycle. For example, when vision impaired participants seek funding for a dog guide, this process typically triggers an unscheduled reassessment of their current plan, because the identification of a suitable match and/or retirement of their existing dog cannot be timed to coincide with their anticipated plan renewal date. Currently this is not problematic because an unscheduled plan assessment can occur for any reason, however, it must be ensured that these new criteria do not unintentionally preclude a participant from seeking funding for high cost assistive technology such as dog guides at the time when it is needed. The need for a first or replacement dog guide would not generally arise due to a change in the participant’s impairment, nor would it be considered an informal support. Such a need might be considered a change in living arrangements, but this is not the commonly understood usage of the term and remains uncertain without further definition. We propose that for the avoidance of doubt, failure or deterioration of high cost assistive technology should be added as an additional criterion under section 48A(3), which would justify a reassessment.

Strengthened Link between Impairment and Need for Support The current legislative framework results in a great deal of confusion and complexity in determining appropriate provision of supports where participants have multiple impairments, only some of which meet the NDIS access criteria. This is likewise the case where participants have a single recognised impairment that has several secondary impacts on other senses and functions. As an example, we work with several participants who have a single neurological

Submission 370

condition that is recognised by the NDIA, but said condition has multiple intellectual, physical and sensory impacts. Despite these requirements having been in place since 2024, we continue to encounter substantial resistance from both participants and support coordinators when explaining that sensory impairment must be recognised in order for vision services to

be funded by the NDIS.  In these situations,  it has proven challenging for participants to

understand exactly which of their support requirements can and should be met by the Scheme.

The current Bill does solidify this position somewhat, in proposing that there must be a direct, rather than contributory, link between the need for a support and the participant’s recognised impairment. The practical interpretation and implementation of these provisions, however, remain unclear. It is not evident how allowance will be made for complex impairments where multiple functional limitations are linked to a single condition. Participants must be able to understand whether they are required to meet access criteria for each individual physical, intellectual and sensory impact linked to their overarching impairment. An ordinary person reading the legislation is also likely to require more explicit criteria to explain the distinction

between   direct and  contributory  links  to impairment. The examples provided  in the

Explanatory Memorandum for this Bill were largely silent on these points, and we wish to highlight that participants and NDIS staff alike will need more comprehensive guidance to support consistent interpretation of these legislated provisions in practice.

Assessment of Functional Capacity

Vision Australia understands that an agreed definition of “substantially reduced functional capacity” is integral to ensuring greater consistency of decision-making with regard to scheme access and eligibility. In principle, we are not opposed to this measure and recognise that much of the detail is still to be determined following the work of the Technical Advisory Group and drafting of subsequent rules. We also recognise that the objective is to assess a person’s intrinsic ability to undertake an activity, to the exclusion of their environmental and personal circumstances, so as to minimise variability between individuals with the same or similar impairments. We suggest that the term “personal and environmental circumstances” should be more clearly defined in the legislation, in the interests of maximising transparency for participants, providers, assessors and decision-makers. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill indicates that the term would include factors such as financial means or living arrangements, however, this detail is not reflected in the legislation itself. This is a risk, because loose definition of these terms in the legislation will lead to variable interpretation as these principles are operationalised within the Scheme. We also note that assessment of eligibility based on functional capacity is a fundamental change in the nature of the NDIS. Accordingly, sufficient time must be allowed to consult with participants and the disability sector around proposed rules and thresholds for access. Trials of proposed tools must be conducted across a broad range of disability cohorts to ensure they are effective prior to implementation. This is crucial, as inadequate or tokenistic consultation throughout this process will further erode the already fragile public trust and confidence in the Scheme.

Plan Renewals

While Vision Australia is not opposed to the replacement of plan continuations with plan renewals, we have one key concern regarding the drafting of section 50A(2) of the Bill. While we understand that one-off funding for high cost assistive technology would typically be removed from subsequent plans, there are some circumstances where this should not occur. For example, where a participant has approved funding for high cost assistive technology such as a dog guide, that funding may need to be carried forward if a suitable match has not been identified by the end date of the current plan. It will be particularly important to ensure this can be effectively managed, given that there is no right of review attached to the plan renewal process. Participants should not have to undertake the burdensome process of seeking a variation because approved assistive technology funding that has not yet been utilised has

Submission 370

been arbitrarily removed from the plan. Accordingly, we suggest that Section 50A(2) should be amended to explicitly allow one-off funding amounts to be retained in a future plan if they have not been utilised but are still supports required by the participant. Alternatively, this could be dealt with as an alteration in a legislative instrument as contemplated by section 50A(3).

Reasonable and Necessary Supports Vision Australia acknowledges that the concept of “reasonable and necessary supports” continues to be interpreted subjectively, with the result that there is an ongoing lack of clarity as to what can and cannot be funded. The introduction of the NDIS Supports lists in 2024 has provided some clarity, however, in some cases there continues to be an expectation gap between the supports that participants want and those that the NDIS can reasonably fund. We

are broadly supportive of the  Bill’s intention to support equity and consistency  in the

determination of reasonable and necessary supports across participants with the same or similar needs. We note that the Bill also strengthens the principle that participants should be responsible for day-to-day living costs, however, our experience in working with participants indicates that many people still struggle to differentiate between those living costs that are related to their disability and those that are not. Despite the fortification of the principle in this Bill, there is an ongoing need for practical and transparent operational guidance outside of this legislation.

We do not support the  inclusion  of section 33(2)EA, which provides  that  Ministerial

determinations may specify a maximum funding amount, intensity or worker ratio for the provision of certain supports. As stated elsewhere in this paper, we are of the view that support determinations are not an appropriate decision-making mechanism in this context. Such determinations are not, by their nature, consultative, and lack transparency and oversight. There must be a commitment for the Minister to engage in productive and transparent dialogue with participants and those in the sector with relevant expertise before wide-ranging changes to supports are made.

We are broadly supportive of the additional value for money considerations that have been added to the reasonable and necessary criteria in section 34, as we feel these will provide greater clarity around the cost considerations relevant to the provision of NDIS supports. We have grave concerns, however, regarding the effective and beneficial considerations that have been added in section 34(1E). We do not condone the principle that the CEO may decide that a support is not effective and beneficial due to a lack of peer reviewed evidence, even where

there  is other evidence that the support  is beneficial either generally, or for a specific

participant. This provision has the potential to severely disadvantage small disability cohorts such as those with vision impairment, who constitute less than 3% of Scheme participants overall. Peer reviewed evidence is often limited due to the size of this cohort and the specialised technologies and therapeutic supports that they access. We therefore suggest the drafting of this section should be amended to ensure that research, evidence of demonstrated outcomes for the participant and the overall effectiveness of the support for those in similar circumstances, are considered with equal weight.

Plan Suspensions

This section of the Bill provides that a plan may be suspended if the CEO is satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made to contact the participant. This section should also contain a legislated commitment that contact attempts will only be considered reasonable if they are undertaken in the participant’s preferred format. Regrettably, after more than ten years of operation, the NDIA’s capacity to provide communications in accessible formats remains woefully and inexcusably inadequate. Vision impaired participants continue to receive important communications about their plans in inaccessible electronic documents that cannot be read with assistive technology, and letters in hardcopy print, despite all preferences for

Submission 370

communication being nominated otherwise. If the Bill seeks to create additional powers for the NDIA to suspend provision of supports, it must also create corresponding responsibility for the Agency to be accountable for the manner in which it communicates with participants.

Alternative Systems of Support

We note that the Bill solidifies the position that a person should not be considered eligible for the NDIS if there is an alternative system such as a compensation scheme that could support them. We are somewhat concerned to see that aged care is referenced as a possible alternative support system that might preclude access to the NDIS. This would significantly disadvantage many older Australians with disability, who have thus far been able to remain in receipt of NDIS services after the age of 65, provided that their needs are primarily related to disability rather than aging. We would not wish to see participants forced to transition to aged care on the basis of an arbitrary age requirement. There are currently several technical and design flaws across aged care programs which mean that they are not well-equipped to meet the needs of people with disability. Extensive work would be needed to address these issues before this could be considered as a viable alternative support system.

Fraud and Payment Integrity Measures

Vision Australia supports the introduction of measures to limit the number of plan management providers operating within the scheme. As a national service provider, we work with a large number of plan managers and find the quality of their engagement and service delivery highly variable. We are often forced to take on the role of educating plan management providers about NDIS processes for assessment, reporting, claiming and invoicing and this is unfunded work that monopolises the time of our staff. We are hopeful that improved regulation and

oversight  of plan management services  will improve the  participant experience  whilst

decreasing the administrative burden upon service providers.

Conclusion

Vision Australia thanks the Community Affairs Legislation committee for its consideration of the issues raised in this paper. We wish you well in your deliberations about this important legislation, and would be happy to provide further information about any of the matters raised in this submission.

Submission 370

About Vision Australia

Vision Australia is the largest national provider of services to people who are blind, deafblind, or have low vision. We are formed through the merger of several of Australia’s most respected and experienced blindness and low vision agencies, celebrating our 150th year of operation in 2017.

Our vision is that people who are blind, deafblind, or have low vision will increasingly be able to choose to participate fully in every facet of community life. To help realise this goal, we provide high-quality services to the community of people who are blind, have low vision, are deafblind or have a print disability, and their families.

Vision Australia service delivery areas include:  Allied Health and Therapy services, and registered provider of specialist supports for the

NDIS and My Aged Care

 Aids and Equipment, and Assistive/Adaptive Technology training and support

 Seeing Eye Dogs

 National Library Services

 Early childhood and education services, and Felix Library for 0–7-year-olds  Employment services, including National Disability Employment Services  Accessible information, and Alternate Format Production

  Vision  Australia Radio network, and national partnership with Radio  for the  Print

Handicapped

 Spectacles Program for the NSW Government  Advocacy and Engagement, working collaboratively with Government, business and the community to eliminate the barriers our clients face in making life choices and fully exercising rights as Australian citizens.

Vision Australia has gained unrivalled knowledge and experience through constant interaction with clients and their families. We provide services to more than 26,000 people each year, and also through the direct involvement of people who are blind or have low vision at all levels of the Organisation. Vision Australia is therefore well placed to provide advice to governments, business and the community on the challenges faced by people who are blind or have low vision fully participating in community life.

We have a vibrant Client Reference Group, with people who are blind or have low vision representing the voice and needs of clients of the Organisation to the Board and Management. Vision Australia is also a significant employer of people who are blind or have low vision, with 15% of total staff having vision impairment.

We also operate Memorandums of Understanding with Australian Hearing, and the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service.