Hello,
I write this submission as a Support Coordinator working directly with National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants, families, carers, and service providers. My role provides daily insight into the practical realities of navigating the NDIS system and the significant barriers already faced by people with disability.
While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and addressing fraud and misuse within the scheme, I am deeply concerned that the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 risks causing substantial harm to participants through increased restrictions, administrative burdens, reduced access to supports, and diminished participant autonomy.
Concerns Regarding Functional Capacity Assessments
The proposed shift toward standardised assessments of “functional capacity” raises serious concerns for participants with psychosocial disability, autism, fluctuating conditions, rare disorders, and complex trauma backgrounds. The Bill proposes a more standardised and evidence-based framework for determining eligibility and support needs.
In practice, disability is rarely linear or easily measurable through standardised tools. Many participants already struggle to adequately communicate their needs during planning meetings due to anxiety, cognitive impairment, communication barriers, or trauma histories. Standardised assessments risk oversimplifying disability and may fail to capture the real-world impacts participants experience in daily living.
As a Support Coordinator, I regularly work with participants whose needs fluctuate significantly depending on mental health, environmental supports, housing stability, and access to therapy. A rigid assessment model could lead to inappropriate funding reductions and exclusion of participants who clearly require support to maintain safety, independence, and community participation.
Increased Barriers to Access
The proposed changes to eligibility, including requirements that individuals exhaust “all appropriate” treatment options before accessing the NDIS, may disproportionately disadvantage vulnerable participants.
Many participants already face extensive waitlists for public healthcare, specialist appointments, allied health services, and mental health treatment. Requiring evidence that all treatment avenues have been exhausted before accessing supports creates an unrealistic and inequitable barrier.
This will particularly impact:
- people in rural and regional areas
- low-income participants
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants
- participants experiencing homelessness or family violence
- participants with psychosocial disabilities who struggle to navigate complex systems independently.
In my experience, delaying support until all treatment options are exhausted often leads to deterioration in functioning, increased crisis presentations, hospitalisations, homelessness, and carer burnout.
Reduction in Support Coordination and Participant Capacity
The proposed move toward a “commissioned support coordination function” commencing from July 2028 creates significant uncertainty about the future independence and availability of Support Coordination services.
Support Coordination is not an administrative luxury. It is often the key safeguard preventing participants from:
- disengaging from services
- being exploited by providers
- experiencing homelessness
- entering crisis systems
- losing essential supports due to system complexity.
Participants with cognitive impairments, psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, acquired brain injuries, or limited informal supports often rely heavily on Support Coordinators to implement plans safely and effectively.
Any reduction in participant choice regarding Support Coordination or movement toward heavily restricted commissioning models risks undermining participant autonomy and increasing systemic inequities.
Administrative Burden on Participants
The proposed tighter reassessment processes, increased evidence requirements, and expanded compliance obligations may unintentionally create additional barriers for participants already struggling to manage daily living tasks.
Participants and families are already overwhelmed by:
- frequent reassessments
- inconsistent NDIA decision-making
- excessive documentation requirements
- prolonged review timeframes
- provider shortages
- funding uncertainty.
Increasing these obligations risks further traumatising participants and families while diverting resources away from actual support delivery.
As Support Coordinators, we are already seeing increased distress among participants who fear losing critical supports, housing stability, and community participation opportunities due to ongoing reforms and reassessments.
Concerns Regarding Automated Decision-Making
Reports regarding increased reliance on automated administrative processes and standardised budget determinations raise concerns about fairness, transparency, and procedural justice.
Disability support planning requires nuanced, individualised consideration. Automated systems cannot adequately account for:
- cumulative disadvantage
- trauma
- fluctuating support needs
- cultural factors
- housing instability
- informal support breakdown
- participant safeguarding risks.
Participants must retain meaningful rights to review and appeal decisions through transparent human-led processes.
Consultation Timeframes and Disability Inclusion
I am also concerned about the limited consultation timeframe for this Inquiry. The Senate inquiry was referred on 14 May 2026 with submissions closing on 29 May 2026.
Many participants, carers, and disability organisations require additional time and support to understand complex legislative reforms and prepare meaningful submissions. Community feedback has consistently highlighted concerns that the consultation period is insufficient for genuine disability-inclusive engagement.
Legislation of this scale and significance should not proceed without extensive consultation with people with disability, families, advocates, frontline workers, and service providers.
Recommendations
I respectfully recommend that the Committee:
-
Extend consultation and submission timeframes to allow meaningful engagement from the disability community.
-
Ensure any functional capacity assessment tools are co-designed with people with disability and independently reviewed for fairness and accessibility.
-
Protect participant choice and control regarding Support Coordination and ensure adequate funding for independent coordination services.
-
Guarantee that automated decision-making processes cannot replace meaningful human assessment and review.
-
Ensure reassessment and evidence requirements are proportionate and do not create unnecessary barriers to support.
-
Maintain strong safeguards and appeal rights for participants impacted by eligibility or funding changes.
-
Conduct comprehensive modelling and publish impact assessments regarding how many participants may lose eligibility or experience reduced supports under the proposed reforms.