Submission 375
1 June 2026
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Delivered via email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Dear Committee Secretary
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion (QAI) is a Disabled Peoples Organisation.
QAI is an independent, community-based advocacy organisation and community
legal service that provides individual and systems advocacy for people with disability. Our purpose is to advocate for the protection and advancement of the needs, rights, and lives of people with disability in Queensland.
QAI has a dedicated NDIS appeals team that provides legal advice and representation for people with disability at all stages of their Administrative Review
Tribunal (ART) appeal.
It is with our frontline experience, including providing technical legal advice to hundreds of participants and their families engaged in ART appeals, that we write to you with our feedback in response to the consultation on the National Disability
Submission 375
Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill
2026 (the Bill).1
It is our view that many aspects of this Bill are misconceived, dangerous, unnecessary and unfairly target people with disability. We urge the Government to stop, slow down, fix the price guide, repair and tighten integrity in the system
and build supports outside the NDIS first. A human rights approach to the amendments must be adopted.
The NDIA itself has significant operational issues. Our countless conversations with participants and/or their families reveal a system which fails to appropriately record data, traumatizes participants and lacks transparency. It fails in its decision-making time and time again. Fix this and savings could be achieved.
Attached to this letter are the following:
-
Annexure A: Case studies demonstrating the work we do and how these changes could impact current and future participants, and
-
Annexure B: A table setting out our detailed comments (to the extent the limited time permitted) on the amendments of concern in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill.
Key requests
- Slow Down: This Bill contains some very complex legislative amendments, the full impact of which will be catastrophic for participants. In the context of the significant changes already made in October 2024, the changes will lead to
dangerous and significant gaps in funding for participants with the highest
needs, with limited resources to fill the gaps other than hospitalisation. Since the October 2024 changes, the complexity of our clients’ needs in the external review process has escalated significantly, as has the rates of hospitalisation, extreme isolation and severe carer burn out.
1 QAI also endorses the submission provided by the Queensland Independent Disability Advocacy Network (QIDAN).
Submission 375
-
Build up supports outside the NDIS: These changes will rapidly result in participants falling through gaps, without appropriate support outside the NDIS being established, or safeguards to reliably identify at-risk individuals. Get that right first.
-
Repair processes within the NDIA and build integrity in the system: Our experience working with hundreds of NDIS appeals clients demonstrates that the NDIA’s internal systems can be chaotic and inconsistent. Plan reassessments are conducted without notice or consultation when not
required or are refused or unactioned when desperately needed. The NDIA databases do not properly record impairments, and even in external reviews, the NDIA has on occasion been unable to tell us what impairments it recognises as meeting access. We still hear stories of the NDIA using inaccessible communication methods, despite countless corrections. Get these things right before targeting participants with suspensions and revocations.
-
Apply the current access criteria appropriately: For too long the NDIA has relied on list A to determine access to the Scheme instead of correctly and consistently applying the existing legislative provisions. The access list A is more permissive than the existing legislation, and it is that list and not the existing access criteria or Tribunal decisions which are responsible for the high numbers of people in the NDIS.
-
Provider of last resort:2 As continuing cuts are imposed on the Scheme, there is no safety net in place for participants whose provider becomes insolvent, is
shut down for abuse or exploitation, or refuses to provide supports at the
intensity funded. There must be a nation-wide appropriate provider(s) of last resort policy, and mechanisms in place to fill support gaps at short notice.
- Price Guide: Review the price guide. Both core and capacity building rates are largely flat regardless of the experience or skill in the services being delivered. It should not be assumed that the majority of participants will have sufficient
2 Recommendation 13.4 of the NDIS Review 2023 – see pages 46 and 179
Submission 375
leverage to offset cuts to their funding by negotiating prices significantly lower than the NDIS price limits.
- Housing: Focused collaboration between the Commonwealth and the States is required to work on housing for people with disability across the country. Unaffordable and inaccessible housing is often a major driver behind the need
for greater support, and the lack of accessible crisis accommodation can force increased hospitalisation. Get this right, and people with disability will benefit and savings across NDIS and Health could be achieved.
Key concerns with the Bill
We have significant concerns with the Bill. They are detailed in the table at Annexure B. Our key issues:
- Executive overreach: The Bill introduces a substantial power shift from decisions made by the NDIA on review of a plan, to the Minister. The scope of these provisions is quite extraordinary and accompanied by no accountability.
The Government has announced it will use these powers to cut community
participation funding by 50% and capacity building (therapy funding) by 10%. In fact, the drafted powers go much further and could allow the current Minister (and future Ministers) to cut up to 99.99% of any funding component for any specified group of people. The Minister only needs to ‘have regard’ to the safety of participants. These powers could be used, now or in the future, for political purposes to target particular groups of people who would have no recourse or review rights.
- Impossible to get a reviewable reassessment: The collective impact of the changes made in 2024 to the reassessment and end of plan provisions mean
participants who need a reassessment because of over-time incremental changes to their support needs (rather than a big life change), will simply not be able to get one. The Bill allows the NDIA to continually create ‘new plans’ which, provided they are the same as the ‘old plan’, have no review rights attached to them.
Submission 375
If something big does change, the NDIA can take 90 days to decide whether to do a reassessment – not to actually do the reassessment, or produce a new plan, but simply make the threshold decision of whether or not to do a reassessment. That is a completely unacceptable timeframe for a person with a complex disability where, for example, their main informal carer has passed
away, or where a severe medical event has resulted in an additional disability which means they cannot be discharged from hospital without a reassessment. See Frankie’s case study below for an illustration of the
difficult circumstance that can arise if reassessment is not done.
- Context of a person’s life experience: Throughout this Bill there are changes targeted at narrowing support (and access) which do not account for the full complexity of life, a person’s environment, and the complexity of disability. These include the changes to s34(1)(aa), to the new definition of functional capacity, the new definition of appropriate treatment, the new presumption of parental responsibility and the punitive suspension and revocation provisions.
All these changes have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on:
-
those with complex comorbidities and trauma,
-
people living with or fleeing domestic violence,
-
children whose parents have a disability themselves and require additional support or families with multiple members with disability,
-
children whose parents are not able, through illness, addiction or trauma to provide the presumptive substantial care and support,
-
those with complex communication requirements, limited literacy or access to technology or where English is not their first language,
-
people who are homeless,
-
people living in remote Australia,
-
people with very limited financial resources,
-
First Nations Australians,
-
any combination of the above.
Submission 375
- Test for permanence made harder: Currently, before a person is eligible for the NDIS, they must have first tried available treatments. The new definition of appropriate treatment requires a person to have tried any treatment regularly performed in Australia, regardless of a person’s financial ability to pay for the treatment or their geographical location. This creates discriminatory barriers
to access, favoring those with the resources to access expensive private treatments and medical specialists able to write comprehensive reports. See our case study for James, who was First Nations and who lived in a remote
community in North Queensland below.
- Arbitrary cut to social and community participation: The proposal to cut community participation funding by 50% is extreme and will adversely affect those least able to withstand an arbitrary cut in their funding. Social and community participation has been unfairly targeted.
Our key concerns:
- Where participants have insufficient funding for basic daily activities like showering, dressing, eating, this funding, in our experience, is used to make up the gap. Many participants already forego community access, other than that which they must absolutely attend, like GP or
hospital appointments, because they lack sufficient funding for self care (see Frankie in our case studies).
- Cuts should not occur to participants with 24/7 support needs. Community participation funding is part of the coverage and a cut to
that funding would cut the 24/7 coverage (we note the Department’s Impact Analysis document did not seem to understand this connection). It is critical for participants with 24/7 support needs who are sharing support to have community access independent from their co-tenants – this promotes longevity to those living arrangements.
Further, many participants, particularly those who are self-managed, have worked very hard to efficiently manage their plans to ‘stretch’ them as far as
they will go. They have already negotiated rates below the price guide – in doing
Submission 375
Submission 375
ANNEXURE A: CASE STUDIES
James: Access for First Nations - Relevant to Permanence Test and Other
Service Systems
QAI assisted James* a First Nations man in his mid-50s living in a remote
Northwest town with his access appeal at the Administrative Review Tribunal.
James lived with complex physical and psychosocial disabilities associated with
his chronic joint pain, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar affective disorder. He had very high support needs. He could not shower or complete basic self-care tasks without significant support. James was regularly being hospitalised due to his self-harm attempts, using this hospital support as ‘respite’ as he did not have access to appropriate supports in his home and community.
He had been trying to gain access to the NDIS for years.
As he was First Nations and in his early to mid-50s, the health services arranged
for him to be on highest home care package under My Aged Care, so he has some in-home support. Despite this his main support worker provided significant unpaid support well, above and beyond what his package provided, which was unsustainable long term.
The barrier for James was not his function – it was extremely clear on the evidence that he met the legal criteria for substantially reduced functional capacity. It was
demonstrating that his impairment, psychosocial and physical were permanent. Due to the complex nature of his conditions, their overlapping impact, and because he lived in a remote town with limited access to health services, it was
very difficult for James to demonstrate to the standard required by the current NDIS law that his impairments attributable to his multiple complex chronic health conditions were permanent and could not be treated. Gathering the evidence needed to demonstrate this was only possible with QAI’s assistance in his appeal at the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Submission 375
James ultimately was successful with his appeal, without the need for a hearing. He received his first NDIS plan, which the funding that he needed to live safely in the community. It was more than the My Aged Care system, because James’s complex disabilities required that.
Unfortunately, last year James passed away in hospital from complications
associated with his disabilities. In the last 12 months of his life, he got the support he needed, his hospitalizations reduced, and he got out on country fishing.
The proposed amendments would likely have stopped James from accessing the Scheme due to:
-
His being able to access an aged care home package early – despite it being wholly inadequate for his needs, and
-
The proposed test for permanence which would potentially make it even harder than it was to demonstrate he met this criteria.
Frankie: Impact of underfunded plan – community access, reassessment requests and impairments
QAI assisted a 29-year participant, Frankie* with a diagnosis of ASD Level 3, an intellectual impairment, CPTSD, and a rare genetic condition with an appeal for support worker assistance. They were subjected to extreme abuse and violence
by their parents as a child, removed by the State as an adult, and then with no other option, moved to live with their sister and her family.
Frankie’s sister has children aged between 10 – 18. Frankie is described as having childlike behaviours and didn’t understand physical boundaries, requiring very high vigilance by their sister to keep her children safe. They need constant support and supervision. Frankie only had 3 hours of support per day for self-care activities, 12 days of respite per year (at a 1:3 ratio) and 24 hours per week for community access. They needed 24-hour support. The community access support was needed to ensure Frankie was getting the bare minimum in their home. This extremely low level of funding was in place over 3 years through
Submission 375
various change of circumstance requests and ultimately had to go to the Tribunal. It was at the Tribunal over 12 months. Through this period due to the unsustainable arrangement at Frankie’s sister’s home, Frankie had to move to supported independent living, without the necessary funding.
Part of the issue for Frankie was that the NDIA didn’t accept evidence from a
psychiatrist as to their impairments (obtained at the cost of Frankie’s sister), the NDIA didn’t recognise the full impact of their ASD, intellectual impairment, trauma
and genetic syndrome. At the Tribunal the NDIA obtained a report from a psychiatrist appointment by them who confirmed that Frankie needed 24/7 support.
During the 3 years with insufficient funding, Frankie and their sister were under extreme pressure, providers were sourced using the limited funds, who did not have the skills necessary to support Frankie – without a plan that supported Frankie, they were at risk and several complaints had to be made to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
This case study demonstrates:
-
The barriers associated with demonstrating the impairments which meet access (noting psychiatrists are very expensive), and
-
The failure of decision making at the first, second (internal review) and third instance to recognise the support needs for Frankie.
With the proposed further tightening of reassessment requests and the longer wait time, participants like Frankie and their family will be even further at risk.
Finally, the plan Frankie had was so underfunded for 3 years, that if the 50% cut to their plan occurred, combined with strict funding periods, further harm would have been caused.
Submission 375
Jack: Transition to adulthood – Social hospitalisation
Jack* turned 19 this year. He has a review ongoing at the ART which started in July last year. He has autism (level 3), ADHD, klinefelter syndrome and borderline intellectual functioning, together with complex health needs. He has very complex behaviours and requires 24/7 support. Prior to turning 18, he
was living on his own, following behaviours which could not be sustained in his family home. Jack’s housing was supported by Queensland Health which was
provided on a short term basis prior to turning 18 (this was an unusual arrangement but necessary). He also received NDIS at a 1:1 ratio. In preparation for turning 18, a change of circumstance application (reassessment) was made to the NDIA to transition Jack to SDA and continue his NDIS supports, after he turned 18.
A new plan issued a few months prior to his 18th birthday which did not include SDA and included a SIL model of care at a 1:3 ratio. It included no funding for any transition to a shared model of care. There was no evidence to support a shared
model of care at that time (or now) and shared care posed significant safety risks for workers, the participant and other participants.
The insufficient funding has contributed to housing instability for Jack and he has been compelled to move 4 times since March 2025, funds have been exhausted, his parent has experienced severe burnout, and most recently Jack required a social hospital admission for a period of 6 weeks.
This case demonstrates the poor planning process and understanding of life transitions by the NDIA. In addition, it demonstrates how if Ministerial determinations were to be applied to cut the funding in his plan, Jack would
exhaust his funds sooner and be hospitalised earlier, or more frequently.
*Names have been changed to protect identities.
Submission 375
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendationoverview. Our experience with the
Transitional NDIS Supports Rules,
which were rushed and contain numerous errors, inconsistencies and even typos, have led to confusion, inequity and poorly understood applications.
These Transitional Rules could apply for some time as they will apply to until the Commonwealth, States and Territories agree a new set of Rules.
Sch 1, Part 2 Reassessment Participants The Bill: We have significant and serious concern Legislative changes:
New section requests - in crisis that these provisions are not nimble - The word ‘unanticipated’ - Extends the time the
48A widely referred needing enough to respond to life changes for must be removed from the NDIA has to consider a
to as Change of urgent participants. Bill. Most significant changes request for a
Circumstances support are anticipated – but reassessment from 21
In our experience, the Scheme does not participants can’t predict days to 90 days (noting
and has not responded well to life necessarily when they will this is not the time in
transitions, like finishing school, moving happen. which to conduct theout of home, death of a parent or spouse, reassessment – only
loss of a flatmate or the changing impact of - The word ‘directly’ related to whether to do one!)1a disability. an impairment must be
deleted. Where a - Will only be granted if:participant’s disability
1 The public records indicate that the NDIA is currently only making this decision within the required 21-day timeframe 29% of the time. Following the decision to do a reassessment they then have 28 days to do a plan reassessment they have agreed to (achieved 87% of the time) and 28 days to make changes to a plan (achieved 39% of the time). This seems like a workflow issue, not a legislated timeframes issue. https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/service-charter/participant service-guarantee 2 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
o relates directly to A participant’s plan must have flexibility to fluctuates or there is a rapid
an impairment manage transitions. These changes make it deterioration in function,
tested against the slow, bureaucratic and almost impossible support MUST be the
access criteria. to get a reassessment on life changes priority, not requiring
o There has been (many of which are anticipated!). participants to evidence theiran additional support needs are
unanticipated, These provisions when read in directly related to their
significant and combination with the impact of short qualifying impairments
ongoing alteration funding periods are dangerous, will result (particularly, when, the
in the in hospitalisations, possible death, NDIA’s records of
participant’s debts incurred by participants and prevent impairments are often wrong
living, education, and delay appropriate life transitions. or incomplete. Eg. Forrestwork or network and NDIA [2025] ARTA 1131). of informal A review of the case studies in the
support. Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill - Remove 90 days for an urgentindicates the drafters are not fully aware of change of circumstance – 21
- Gives the NDIA a right the current provisions for requesting a days is more than sufficient
to build a new variation or reassessment. to decide the thresholdframework plan, question of whether a
where a participant For example, in relation to Majak and Mai, reassessment should be
requests a in our experience, the NDIA has not yet done.reassessment (13). properly implemented processes for variations which could work for Mai and Non-legislative change:
- Requires a form and Majak. The tight funding periods, make it - Improve NDIA process to
required documents. very difficult for participants to use funding assess reassessmentflexible for a very short time. The variation requests. process is still slow and difficult for participants with very technical legislative rules.
3 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
Sch 1, Part 3 Whole of Anyone with The changes remove the These changes undo carefully considered Legislative Change: Proposed
person multiple and concept introduced in the wording developed in consultation with the amendments should be rejected
Primarily interacting 2024 amendments of disability community during the 2024 in their entirety. They are
34(1)(aa) disabilities providing supports amendments. This amendment is a unnecessary.necessary ‘arising from an deliberate attempt to subvert a recent
impairment’ which meets Federal Court decision, it appears to be an These amendments are a
either the disability ideological change and not grounded in kneejerk response to the
requirements or the early proper cost saving considerations or the Eastham decision and fly in the
intervention requirements. lived experience of people with disability. face of the whole of personThere is no common sense in this recommendations in the NDIS
The words ‘arising from’ amendment. Review.and accompanying note to 34(1)(aa) have been Key issues: removed. The words
‘arising from’ have been - Participants still do not know whatreplaced throughout the impairments the NDIA recognises.
Bill with the following: - The NDIA records ‘diagnosis’ andoften assumes (without clinical ‘arising directly from an expertise) that results in certain impairment or impairments, despite evidence to the impairments’ which meet contrary. For example, the NDIS the access criteria. regularly refuse exercise physiology for cognitive and neurological impairments, failing to understand the link to physical functioning and the importance of maintaining mobility.
-
It is often not possible to distinguish which impairment is the cause of a particular support need.
-
Requiring a ‘direct’ connection between unknown or unstated 4 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
When a determination is - group social and community supports
made, every old for people with significant intellectual Review and reduce current
framework plan made disability reduced by 50% or more. maximum rates within theafter 7 October 2026 to price guide and scale
which the determination The power is incredibly significant which according to qualification.
applies will have the could result in substantial and detrimental If the Government proceeds with
funding reduction applied. impacts to participants, without any right the amendment (which it shouldof review. not): The only limit on the
Minister is that they must Social and community participation - any percentage reduction
‘have regard’ to the safety funding is not just for ‘fun’ activities. should be no more than 10%of Participants. Participants use the funding to attend
medical appointments and to access the - participants who requireshops for groceries and essentials. 24/7 support must be excluded from any blanket In homes where participants are sharing reduction to community supports (eg 3 participants), community funding – otherwise there participation funding is critical to ensuring will be a huge gap in support residents can take a break from the house coverage for them. and be independent of their co-tenants.
Without these breaks, tenancy - Participants with grouprelationships will be put under pressure, community funding must and could increase behaviours which not be reduced. For result in harm to self and others and a example, if a participant is breakdown of shared support attending a group at a 1:3 arrangements. ratio for 3 hours per week – to split that in half will make Many clients we speak to have insufficient that activity impossible. funding for self-care (showering etc) in their plan. They rely on their community Participants who are using all access funding to make up the gap. We their core funding before the end 6 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendationhave supported clients at the Tribunal who, of a funding period ending through poor NDIS planning, must use all should be excluded, as this their community funding for basic self- indicates they do not have any care. room in their budget to withstand an arbitrary reduction. Arbitrarily cutting community funding without understanding individual impact is reckless and unsafe.
Sch 1, Part 7 Plan All New clause allowing: The scope of these changes when read in Legislative change:
Suspensions participants conjunction with the amendments made in
New section especially - suspension of a 2024 to s36 and s50 could have Remove these provisions. The
40A those with participant’s plan if catastrophic implications for participants 2024 amendments provide
complex the participant is not with complex communications needs, no sufficient mechanisms to
communicat contactable informal supports, remote communities, suspend a plan and revoke
ions needs (reviewable decision) the CALD community, people who are access.
and no (new section 40A). homeless, those who have fled domestic
support violence and those with extreme distrust of If Government proceeds, as a
- the CEO to remove a Government systems. minimum the following isperson (revoke required: status) from the These proposed provisions are
Scheme if the CEO unnecessarily punitive and dangerous. • The NDIA must improve itshas not been able to systems. Suspension should
contact the We know from our conversations with be an absolute last resort,
participant (new participants that the NDIA commonly fails where all efforts have been
s30(1A)) or their plan to meet its communication requirements made to contact a participant.
has been suspended (e.g. phoning Deaf participants when their ‘Reasonable attempts’ is not
for at least 90 days. file says to email). sufficient to justify asuspension.
7 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation-
No revocation should occur for a participant being uncontactable, unless the plan has first been suspended (which should only occur in extreme cases). Once a person has been revoked, if that has been done without reason, then it is extremely costly to all systems (NDIS, Health etc), and dangerous for that person, whilst they try to get back on the Scheme.
-
If a suspension does occur due to a participant being ‘uncontactable’, and the participant contacts the NDIA following the suspension, the suspension must cease. As the participant is no longer ‘uncontactable’, they should have their plan restored. Other provisions already in the NDIS Act can be triggered to suspend a plan or revoke access if the NDIA then determines the person doesn’t meet the access criteria.
8 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Submission 375
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendationfunding (one-off funding) that will be lost.
Sch 1. Part 6 Principles All New principles have been We consider these changes are We consider these changes are
relating to participants included as follows: unnecessary. unnecessary.New 17B Scheme
sustainability - to reiterate that the The Impact Analysis by the Department of Non-legislative change:scheme is to fund Health, Disability and Ageing
support directly acknowledges that this provision to more The Commonwealth and State
necessary to a strictly link support needs to eligible governments should actively
person’s ‘access met’ impairments will disproportionately impact collaborate to proactively
impairments marginalised groups who are more likely to develop robust and clear
- that it is desirable for experience chronic disease due to the agreements regarding
communities to cumulative impacts of historical, social overlapping support systems
support participants, and systemic inequalities, including (e.g. health, education, housing).
- that participants are potentially affecting Closing the Gap
responsible for their outcomes. The prioritisation of cost- The NDIA should prioritise
day to day living shifting significantly worsens outcomes for developing clear and sensible
costs, including the individuals with complex support needs, policy regarding accurate
costs incurred as a such as those with interacting disability identification of day to day living
person with a and health needs. Pushing these supports costs. This policy should reflect
disability. out of the NDIS does not necessarily save the fact that something which iscosts, due to increased costs through e.g. a luxury for some may be an unnecessary hospitalisations. essential disability support for others.
Sch 1, Part 6 Maximum All Under the existing section This provision is setting up a power for the Remove this power and retain
Amounts, participants 33(2E) the Minister can Minister to cap funding amounts and force the original intent of the Scheme
New Maximum make a legislative a default ratio of care. to ensure participants are
ss33(2E) and Intensity or instrument by supported to the level required
(2EB) Maximum determination effectively QAI works with some of the most complex due to their disability.Ratios and high support need clients. These kinds 11 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendationaround funding amounts of determinations cannot be applied safely and funding period. for those clients.
The new subsection Regardless of whether the reasonable and expands the scope of what necessary support is determined to be can be done under that higher, the caps will be applied. determination to allow by legislative instrument: The EM provides examples for capacity
- a maximum amount building and social and community fundingof funding for a however, these caps could equally be support or class of applied to critical core funding. support,
- the maximum For example, a person may require 2intensity for a support people for critical support, including
- the maximum ratio of transfers but the determination limitsworker to participant support to only a 1:3 ratio. The shortfalls for provision of the will need to be made up in hospitals and by support or supports in families. the class of support. There is no transparency or accountability The notes indicate that the as to what can be determined and appears maximums would apply that the Scheme is returning to block regardless of whether the funding, which will result in a return to amount meets the cost. institutions. It is as if nothing has been learnt from the DRC.
Sch 1, Part 6 Appropriately Participants This provision returns the This change is not necessary for old N/A
funded by the stuck old s34(1)(f) into the framework plans given the NDIS
New NDIS between reasonable and necessary (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional
s34(1)(g) Government criteria. Rules 2024, however will enable aSystems
12 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendationwhere consistent approach for the issue of new funding framework plans. responsibilit y is in QAI’s concern is that participants will be dispute left to negotiate between government systems and left unsupported in the meantime.
Sch 1. Part 6 Value for All These are additional QAI is concerned that it is not clear that in We think these provisions are
money participants subparagraphs to the consideration of ‘comparable unnecessary.
34(1A) – (1D) consider what is meant by supports’ as required by (1A), avalue for money under comparable support must be one which s34(1)c). meets the other R&N criteria.
Sch 1, Part 6 Parental Supports for The following presumption These provisions are extremely concerning These provisions are not
responsibility children is included in the section: to us. This provision assumes every child necessary.
34(1G) – (1J) (1G) requires the CEO on the scheme has two parents who aremust take into able to provide substantial care. account the presumption that It imposes, to be frank, a middle class, parents are privileged and ableist test on supports for responsible for children. providing substantial care and The provisions fail to understand that support for their children with complex disabilities, may children. need additional support if: (1H) For the purposes of
- their parent(s) have disabilities subsection (1G),themselves, substantial care and
- there are multiple children in a support includes:household with disabilities, 13 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
(a) supervision, - they live in a kinship arrangement (forpersonal care, example with grandparents)
transport, - the different family structures thatemotional may exist support and behavioural support; and (b) other assistance with the activities of daily living that, regardless of the child’s disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age. (1J) Prevents funding if it: (a) reduce burdens on parental time below what is reasonably expected of a parent; (b) improve household efficiency;
14 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
functional impairments; and (c) is - the inequity in the health
impairment. regularly undertaken or - for those unable to obtain written system, and
performed in Australia. reports from medical specialists due to - fluctuation for impairments.their costs (our experience is that this
(2) Treatment may be evidence can be ignored by the NDIA) (Note, the Impact Analysis
appropriate treatment for - for those where there are significant stated these changes were not a
a person’s impairment or cost and distance barriers to perceived cost saver rather it was the
impairments regardless of treatments change to the lists.)
whether the person’s - for those with complex psychosocialindividual circumstances or cognitive disabilities whose ability restrict the person from to access the health system and accessing the treatment. treatments is compromised
Note: A person’s - for those with poorly understoodindividual circumstances conditions where there is a paucity of include the person’s clinical research and misunderstood financial circumstances assumptions associated with their and geographical location. condition, especially where they have likely already experienced significant (3) For the purposes of diagnostic delays. paragraphs 24(5)(a) and 25(1B)(a), a person is It has been our experience that when taken to have undertaken considering the criteria the NDIA: all appropriate treatment
for an impairment or - ignored medical evidence, even fromimpairments: very Senior Medical Specialists. Made
(a) if the person has sweeping assumptions that ‘a bit more undertaken all appropriate physiotherapy’ may ‘cure’ a long-term treatment for the disability and referred to poorly tested impairment or treatment options, without the impairments except appropriate knowledge. appropriate medical 16 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
treatment the person - Did not accept when certain treatmentscannot undertake for were not appropriate for medical medical reasons; or reasons. (b) in the circumstances determined under In addition, the new definition fails to subsection (4). account for ‘treatments’ which may temporarily improve a person’s capacity for short periods but would not permanently cure or remedy their impairment. For example, regular physiotherapy may mean a person can transfer independently from their wheelchair to their bed, that may be perceived by the NDIA as a material improvement, but it is not a cure.
Sch 1, Part 9 Eligibility Any person These provisions provide These provisions can have far reaching We do not agree with these
restricted if who may for the making of rules: consequences and could result in great amendments.
New section other services have access • to exclude a class of inequity and injustice.
25B potentially to other people from the The drafting is simplistic and will
available systems Scheme, These provisions could be used to target have unintended consequences,
(even where • circumstances which veterans in the scheme and First Nations leaving people with disability
those would exclude people who whilst under 65 access aged care falling through the gaps.
systems are from the Scheme. support whilst waiting on NDIS access.
not for Even where those other schemes are The rules could subvert the clear
disability or They also exclude people wholly inappropriate for the support needs legislative principles for access
sufficient to from the Scheme for of the person. to the Scheme.cover their impairments which:
needs) Whilst it is understood that if a person with The aged care system used prior
• were caused by a significant disability is appropriately to 65 should not be used to
motor vehicle accident supported through a compensation disqualify a person from the17 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026
Submission 375
Bill Ref Topic Impacts Change QAI Feedback Recommendation
*Potential and a law provides for scheme, they should not also receive NDIS NDIS. Our experience working
high impact compensation or other as that would be a duplication, people with with First Nations clients across
on First benefits for the disability should not be left falling between Queensland is that the aged care
Nations over impairment the gaps and forced to navigate these system is for aged care support
50 who may • were a work-related complex systems. NOT disability support AND is
get early injury and workers accessed in desperation by First
access to compensation Nations people with disability
the aged providing for when they are under 65 because
care system. compensation or other they need support. See our casebenefits. study for James.
18 QAI detailed feedback on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – 1 June 2026