Submission Opposing the Legislation of the Future Generations Bill

I write to express my strong opposition to several provisions contained within the Future Generations Bill, which I believe will have serious and lasting consequences for people living with disability, their families, carers, and support networks.

The proposed changes risk undermining the foundational principles of the NDIS, especially choice, control, fairness, and individualised support.

Section 34A

I strongly oppose the proposed power allowing the Minister to implement broad reductions to participants’ plans through legislative instrument without appropriate safeguards, transparency, or accessible review pathways for participants.

This provision grants excessive authority to the Minister over the supports and services people with disability rely upon for their daily lives and wellbeing. Decisions that directly impact participants’ independence and quality of life must be subject to accountability, procedural fairness, and independent review mechanisms.

Section 33(2)(e)(a)

I oppose the Minister having the legislative authority to cap supports or impose maximum funding limits for particular supports or classes of support.

Disability-related needs are highly individual and cannot be appropriately managed through blanket caps or standardised assumptions. While one participant may require support from only one or two allied health professionals, another participant with similar funding may require multiple specialists to address the complexity of their disability-related needs.

Funding should remain ﬂexible and responsive to the individual circumstances of each participant rather than restricted by rigid limitations.

There must also be greater transparency regarding how funding caps are determined and applied.

Section 34(1AA) – Whole Person Approach

I oppose the failure of the legislation to properly recognise and support people with disability through a genuine whole-person approach.

Disability impacts many aspects of a person’s life simultaneously. A participant may experience multiple intersecting challenges, including communication difficulties, behavioural supports, nutritional concerns, sensory issues, mental health conditions, or mobility barriers. These needs cannot be separated into isolated categories without negatively affecting outcomes.

Participants deserve supports that recognise them as whole people and promote meaningful participation, wellbeing, and long-term success.

Section 50A

I oppose the clawback of unspent funds.
People with disability often encounter barriers that prevent consistent access to supports, including hospital admissions, limited provider availability, workforce shortages, and reduced services in regional and remote areas.
Participants must retain the ﬂexibility to use their supports in ways that best suit their disability-related needs and circumstances. For example, a participant may choose to consolidate smaller weekly support hours into larger support blocks during school holidays or periods where support is more beneﬁcial and effective.
Removing this ﬂexibility erodes participant choice and control.

Section 48A

I oppose additional barriers to requesting unscheduled reviews when disability-related needs change, as well as restrictions on the ability to appeal these decisions.
Disability support needs can change unexpectedly and require timely responses. Participants should not face unnecessary administrative obstacles when seeking reassessment of essential supports.

Sections 40A and 31A

I oppose the proposed power allowing the CEO to suspend participant plans where contact cannot be established within a set timeframe.
People with disability and carers often navigate complex circumstances that can affect communication and responsiveness, including medical crises, hospitalisation, cognitive impairments, mental health challenges, or caring responsibilities.
I also oppose the introduction of civil penalties without proper consideration for participants with intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injuries (ABI), traumatic brain injuries (TBI), or other conditions that may impact comprehension, communication, or executive functioning.

Section 9B

I oppose the “naked person” approach to eligibility assessments.
Disability is not temporary for many participants. It is lifelong and ongoing. Eligibility assessments must acknowledge the permanent and enduring nature of disability rather than assessing individuals in isolation from the supports they require to function and participate in society.

Schedule 5 – Transitional Rules

I oppose the broad powers granted to the Minister to create transitional rules that may be influenced by shifting political priorities or government agendas.

Participants require certainty, consistency, and legislative protections. Transitional arrangements must include stronger safeguards, clearer limitations, and independent oversight to ensure the rights and needs of people with disability remain protected.

Consultation and Government Responsibility

There must be meaningful consultation with people with disability, carers, families, advoates, and the broader disability community before implementing changes of this scale.

The Federal Government must also work collaboratively with states and territories to eestablish clear responsibilities for supports no longer funded through the NDIS, similar to the cooperative framework previously established under the COAG Agreement.

People with disability deserve policies that are developed with them, not imposed upon them.

The voices and lived experiences of participants must remain central to any reform process.