Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Opposing the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I write to strongly oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

This Bill fundamentally alters the purpose, accessibility, and rights-based foundations of the NDIS. The proposed amendments shift the Scheme away from individualised support and participant autonomy toward cost containment, administrative control, and restrictive eligibility measures.

The Bill is fundamentally excluding people with disability from necessary supports, reducing procedural fairness, weakening participant protections, and undermining the original intent of the NDIS as a social insurance scheme.

1. Functional Capacity Test – Restrictive Access Changes

Current NDIS Act:

Section 24 currently allows access where a person has a permanent impairment that substantially reduces functional capacity in one or more domains.

Proposed Amendment:

The Bill introduces a new legal framework for determining “functional capacity” through standardised assessments and future legislative instruments.

Concern:

The Bill creates uncertainty by moving critical eligibility criteria out of primary legislation and into delegated rules. This reduces parliamentary scrutiny and increases the risk that eligibility thresholds can be tightened without adequate oversight.

The framework of Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026 disadvantages:

• people with fluctuating disabilities
• psychosocial disability participants
• autistic participants

• participants whose impairments are difficult to quantify through standardised assessments

The proposal effectively narrows eligibility despite existing safeguards already contained within sections 24 and 25 of the current Act.

Permanence Requirements – Proposed Section Tightening

Current NDIS Act:

Section 24 requires that impairments are likely to be permanent.

Proposed Amendment:

The Bill is introducing additional requirements that:

• all appropriate treatment must be undertaken
• no treatment is likely to materially improve impairment impacts
• permanence criteria may be prescribed by legislative instrument

Concern:

This amendment creates a dangerous precedent requiring participants to continually pursue treatment before qualifying for support when disabilities:

• cannot be cured
• fluctuate over time
• involve treatments that are inaccessible, traumatic, ineffective, experimental, or financially unattainable

The proposed wording creates barriers for people with chronic illness, psychosocial disability, neurological conditions, and autistic people whose impairments remain lifelong even when therapies are attempted.

This amendment is converting the NDIS from a support scheme into a medical compliance system.

3. Restricting Supports to Directly Linked Impairments

Section 34 allows funding of “reasonable and necessary supports” related to disability needs.

Proposed Amendment:

Supports will only be funded where the need “arises directly” from impairments for which the participant originally met access.

Concern:

This is one of the most restrictive amendments in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

Disability impacts are interconnected. Participants frequently require supports that arise from combinations of impairments, secondary conditions, trauma, ageing, environmental barriers, or cumulative functional impacts.

This amendment:

• reduces flexibility in planning
• excludes preventative supports
• limits mental health supports
• reduces early intervention capacity
• creates arbitrary distinctions between impairments

It undermines the holistic and person-centred principles of the current Scheme.

4. Ministerial Powers to Reduce Supports

Current NDIS Act: Funding decisions are primarily made through participant planning processes and NDIA operational guidelines.

Proposed Amendment: The Commonwealth Minister may make determinations to reduce funding categories including social and community participation supports.

Concern: This grants excessive executive power to reduce supports without adequate parliamentary scrutiny or independent review.

Social and community participation is not optional. It is central to:

• inclusion
• mental health
• independence
• employment pathways
• prevention of isolation

The proposal directly contradicts the original objects and principles of the NDIS.

5. Mandatory Plan End Dates and Loss of Unspent Funds

Current NDIS Act: Participants may retain flexibility through plan reassessments and some continuity of supports.

Proposed Amendment: All plans will have mandatory end dates and unspent funds will not carry over.

Concern: Participants often save funds for:

• assistive technology
• episodic needs
• hospital transitions
• emergencies
• delayed service availability

Preventing rollover punishes participants for provider shortages and systemic delays beyond their control.

This amendment prioritises budget recovery over participant stability and continuity of care.

6. “Reasonable and Necessary” Supports - Sustainability Test

Current NDIS Act: Section 34 focuses on what is reasonable and necessary for the participant.

Proposed Amendment:

Page 5

The NDIA must consider:

• Scheme sustainability
• equity across participants
• broader budget considerations

Concern: Introducing sustainability as a core decision-making factor fundamentally changes the Scheme. The NDIS was designed as an entitlement-based insurance model. Decisions should be based on participant needs, not macroeconomic targets.

This amendment provides:

• systemic funding cuts
• standardised rationing
• reduced individualisation
• erosion of participant rights

7. Suspension and Revocation Powers

Current NDIS Act: Participant status remains protected unless formal revocation processes occur.

Proposed Amendment: Plans may be suspended after unsuccessful contact attempts, and participant status revoked after 90 days.

Concern: Many participants:

• experience housing instability
• are hospitalised
• have communication barriers
• experience psychosocial crises
• lack advocacy supports

Page Text

The proposed powers disproportionately impact the most vulnerable participants and create wrongful loss of access.

8. Automated Administrative Decision-Making

Current NDS Act:

Human decision-makers are primarily responsible for planning and administrative actions.

Proposed Amendment: The NDIA may automate administrative actions including claims processing.

Concern: Automated decision-making systems have:

• algorithmic bias
• procedural unfairness
• inaccessible review mechanisms
• errors affecting vulnerable participants

The Bill produces insufficient safeguards, lacks transparency requirements, and lacks independent oversight regarding automated systems.

9. Reduced Rights Through Delegated Legislation

A major concern throughout this Bill is the extensive reliance on:

• Ministerial determinations
• legislative instruments
• future rules

Critical participant rights and eligibility criteria should remain within primary legislation where they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The Bill grants broad discretionary powers while reducing certainty for participants.

10. Inadequate Consultation Process

Page 7

The consultation timeframe for this Bill has been unreasonably short considering the scale and complexity of the reforms.

Meaningful consultation with disabled people requires:

• accessible materials
• adequate timeframes
• co-design
• genuine engagement

The rushed process is inconsistent with the principle of “Nothing About Us Without Us.”

This Bill represents one of the most significant restrictions of disability rights since the creation of the NDIS.

The proposed amendments:

• narrow access
• reduce supports
• centralise executive power
• weaken participant protections
• prioritise cost containment over human rights

I urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill not proceed in its current form.

At minimum, the following provisions should be removed or substantially amended:

• restrictive permanence requirements
• direct impairment linkage requirements
• Ministerial support reduction powers
• mandatory loss of unspent funds
• sustainability weighting in reasonable and necessary decisions
• broad suspension and revocation powers
• automated decision-making without safeguards

Page 8

The NDIS should remain a rights-based, participant-centred scheme that supports inclusion, dignity, and independence for people with disability. While safeguarding the long-term sustainability of the NDIS is important, this Bill fundamentally alters the nature of the Scheme from an individual rights-based social insurance model into a fiscally constrained administrative system that prioritises budget containment over participant rights, independence and inclusion.

The proposed amendments undermine the original intent of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and conflict with the foundational intergovernmental agreements underpinning the Scheme, including the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreement establishing the NDIS.

The original COAG agreement recognised that:

• people with disability have the same rights as other Australians to determine their own best interests;
• supports should maximise social and economic participation;
• the Scheme should operate according to principles of fairness, reasonableness, necessity and lifetime support;
• governments should work cooperatively with people with disability in the design and implementation of reforms.

This Bill departs from those principles in several significant ways.

Concerns Regarding Specific Provisions

Section 34A – Ministerial Determinations Reducing Supports

section 34A grants sweeping powers to the Minister to make determinations reducing funding categories or classes of supports across the Scheme.

This effectively allows broad reductions in participant supports without parliamentary scrutiny of individual impacts or adequate merits review protections.

Page 9

The provision is:

• replacing individualised assessment with top-down fiscal controls;
• creating arbitrary reductions disconnected from participant need;
• undermining participant certainty and autonomy;
• politicising support decisions.

The NDIS was established as an entitlement based on functional need, not as a capped welfare program subject to shifting ministerial priorities.

Section 34(1)(aa) – Sustainability as a Reasonable and Necessary Criterion

Embedding “Scheme sustainability” as a direct consideration in reasonable and necessary decisions fundamentally changes the purpose of the NDIS.

Reasonable and necessary supports should be determined according to:

• the participant’s disability-related needs;
• evidence-based supports;
• social and economic participation outcomes;
• human rights principles.

Introducing sustainability as a decision-making factor creates a conflict between participant rights and government budget objectives. This provision confirms:

• systemic rationing of supports;
• inconsistent decision-making;
• increased disputes and appeals;
• discriminatory outcomes for participants with complex needs.

The Scheme’s financial sustainability should be addressed through governance reform, pricing integrity and fraud prevention, not through limiting legitimate participantsupports.

Section 32EA – Restricting Access to Reassessments

The proposed restrictions on unscheduled reassessments fail to recognise the reality of fluctuating disability, episodic conditions and rapidly changing support circumstances.

Many participants experience:

• sudden deterioration;
• housing instability;
• carer breakdown;
• mental health crises;
• changes in informal support arrangements.

Restricting reassessment access may leave participants without adequate supports for extended periods, creating heightened risks of hospitalisation, institutionalisation and family collapse.

Section 32K(3)(d) – Support Need Assessments and Functional Capacity Frameworks

The proposed framework for standardised assessments and functional capacity methodologies raises profound concerns.

This approach resembles previously rejected independent assessment models that were overwhelmingly opposed by the disability community.

Concerns include:

• overreliance on standardised tools;
• reduced weight given to treating professionals;
• algorithmic or mechanised decision-making;
• failure to account for psychosocial and fluctuating disability;
• culturally unsafe assessment processes;
• loss of participant trust.

The NDIS must remain grounded in holistic, person-centred assessment rather than bureaucratic standardisation.

Section 50A – Plan Suspension Powers

Page 11

Section 50A permits suspension of participant plans where communication attempts are unsuccessful.

This provision disproportionately affects:

• people with psychosocial disability;
• homeless participants;
• participants in crisis;
• people with cognitive impairment;
• individuals experiencing domestic violence or exploitation.

Suspension of supports due to administrative communication failures may place participants at immediate risk of neglect, deterioration and harm.

The provision lacks sufficient safeguards and fails to account for barriers many participants face in communication and engagement.

Section 48A - Plan End Dates and Automatic Renewals

Mandatory plan end dates and restrictions on fund carryover create unnecessary instability for participants.

Participants frequently rely on:

• flexible use of funding;
• delayed implementation due to workforce shortages;
• gradual support transitions;
• saving funds for episodic or high-cost support periods.

Preventing carryover punishes participants for systemic service shortages beyond their control.

The proposal prioritises administrative convenience over participant flexibility and continuity of care.

Section 40A - Strengthening Link Between Impairment and Supports

This amendment narrows support eligibility by requiring a more direct relationship between impairment and supports.

This fails to reflect the social model of disability underpinning the NDIS.

Disability Support Needs

Disability support needs often arise from the interaction between impairment and environmental, social and systemic barriers.

The provision is excluding:

• preventative supports;
• psychosocial supports;
• community participation supports;
• supports addressing complex functional interaction.

This narrowing approach undermines inclusion and early intervention principles.

Section 31A - New Planning Frameworks

The proposed planning reforms increase centralised administrative control while reducing participant agency.

The Bill moves away from collaborative planning and toward standardised budget methodologies.

Participants loose:

• flexibility;
• personalised supports;
• responsiveness to individual goals;
• meaningful co-design.

This contradicts the participant-centred principles embedded in the original NDIS framework.

Section 9B - Definitions and Functional Capacity Concepts

The proposed definitions relating to functional capacity may narrow eligibility and create barriers for future participants.

The Bill shifts eligibility assessment toward rigid functional impairment thresholds ather than holistic assessment of support need.

This disproportionately excludes:

• people with psychosocial disability;
• autistic participants;

• people with fluctuating conditions;

• individuals with cumulative or intersecting impairments.

The disability community has repeatedly expressed concern about functional capacity models being used as exclusionary gatekeeping mechanisms.

Schedule 5 – Governance and Ministerial Powers

Schedule 5 significantly centralises power in the Commonwealth Minister and weakens independent governance safeguards.

The governance:

• reduces operational independence;
• weakens transparency;
• increases political control over pricing and supports;
• diminishes accountability mechanisms.

The NDIS was intended to operate independently of short-term political pressures.

Concentrating pricing and funding powers in the Minister risks politicising disability supports and undermining public confidence in the Scheme.

Consultation and Process Concerns

The consultation timeframe for this Bill has been grossly inadequate for legislation of this scale and complexity.

Many disability advocates and community members have highlighted that:

• only a short submission window was provided;
• accessible consultation processes were limited;
• people with disability were not adequately supported to engage meaningfully.

This approach is inconsistent with the principle of “Nothing About Us Without Us” and undermines genuine co-design.

This Bill represents one of the most significant restructures of the NDIS since its creation.

While measures addressing fraud and provider misconduct are necessary, many of the

proposed amendments fundamentally weaken participant rights, reduce filexibility, centralise ministerial power and shift the Scheme away from its original rights-based purpose.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is :

• reducing access to necessary supports;
• increasing administrative barriers;
• worsening inequity;
• undermining participant autonomy;
• eroding trust in the Scheme.

I urge the Committee to:

1. Remove the provisions expanding ministerial discretion over participant supports;
2. Remove the sustainability considerations from reasonable and necessary decision- making;
3. Provide Stronger safeguards around reassessments and plan suspensions;
4. Preserve participant-centred planning and flexibility;
5. Genuinely co-design with people with disability before any major structural reforms proceed;
6. Fully comply with the original COAG principles underpinning the NDIS.

The future sustainability of the NDIS must not come at the expense of the rights, dignity and participation of people with disability.