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

This Bill fundamentally alters the nature of the Scheme from a rights-based social insurance model into a fiscally constrained administrative system that prioritises cost containment over participant rights, independence, inclusion, and dignity.

The proposed amendments significantly weaken participant protections, narrow access to supports, centralise executive power, and undermine the original intent and foundational principles of the NDIS.

The Bill departs from the principles underpinning the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 which recognises 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; and
• governments should work cooperatively with people with disability in the design and implementation of reforms.

This Bill departs from those principles in several significant respects.

1. Functional Capacity Frameworks and Restrictive Access Changes

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

Currently, section 24 of the NDIS Act allows access where a person has a permanent impairment that substantially reduces functional capacity in one or more domains. The proposed amendments shift critical eligibility criteria out of primary legislation and into delegated legislation and ministerial rules.

Page 2

This creates significant uncertainty and reduces parliamentary scrutiny over access criteria. It also unnecessarily eligibility thresholds without adequate oversight.

The proposed framework disproportionately disadvantages:

• people with psychosocial disability;

• autistic participants;

• people with fluctuating conditions; and

• participants whose impairments are difficult to quantify through standardised assessments.

The disability community has previously rejected similar independent assessment models due to concerns regarding standardisation, mechanised decision-making, and exclusionary gatekeeping practices.

Restrictive Permanence Requirements

The Bill introduces additional permanence requirements, including that:

• all appropriate treatment must be undertaken; and

• no available treatment is likely to materially improve impairment impacts.

The amendments also permit permanence criteria to be prescribed through legislative instruments creating dangerous precedent requiring participants to continually pursue treatment before qualifying for support where disabilities are lifelong, fluctuating, or treatment-resistant.

This disproportionately affects people with:

• chronic illness;

• psychosocial disability;

• neurological conditions; and

• autism.

• Many treatments may be inaccessible, ineffective, experimental, traumatic, or financially unattainable. The NDIS should not become a medical compliance system requiring participants to continually prove they have exhausted treatment options.

Restricting Supports to Directly Linked Impairments

The proposed amendments narrow support eligibility by requiring supports to arise “directly” from impairments for which a participant originally gained access to the Scheme.

This is one of the most restrictive changes in the Bill.

Disability impacts are interconnected and often arise from combinations of impairments, secondary conditions, trauma, ageing, environmental barriers, and cumulative functional impacts.

The amendment is:

• excluding preventative supports;
• reducing psychosocial supports;
• limiting community participation supports;
• undermining early intervention; and
• creating arbitrary distinctions between impairments.

This approach undermines the holistic and person-centred principles underpinning the NDIS.

Expanded Ministerial Powers to Reduce Supports

Proposed section 34A grants sweeping powers to the Minister to reduce funding categories and classes of supports across the Scheme.

This provision allows broad reductions in participant supports without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or meaningful merits review protections.

Page 4

The amendment:

• replaces individualised assessment with top-down fiscal controls;
• undermines participant certainty and autonomy;
• politicises support decisions; and
• disconnects funding decisions from participant need.

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

Sustainability as a “Reasonable and Necessary” Criterion

The Bill introduces “Scheme sustainability” as a direct consideration in determining reasonable and necessary supports.

This fundamentally changes the purpose of the NDIS.

Reasonable and necessary supports should be determined according to:

• disability-related need;
• evidence-based supports;
• social and economic participation outcomes; and
• human rights principles.

Embedding sustainability into individual funding decisions creates an inherent conflict between participant rights and government budget objectives resulting in:

• systemic rationing of supports;
• reduced individualisation;
• inconsistent decision-making; and
• discriminatory outcomes for participants with complex needs.

The financial sustainability of the NDIS should be addressed through governance reform, pricing integrity, and fraud prevention — not through restricting legitimate participant supports.

6. Mandatory Plan End Dates and Loss of Unspent Funds

The Bill introduces mandatory plan end dates and prevents unspent funds from carrying over.

Participants frequently rely on funding flexibility due to:

• workforce shortages;

• delayed service availability;

• episodic support needs;

• hospital transitions; and

• high-cost assistive technology purchases.

Preventing rollover unfairly penalises participants for systemic service shortages and delays beyond their control.

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

7. Restrictions on Reassessments

The proposed restrictions on unscheduled reassessments fail to recognise the reality of fluctuating disability and rapidly changing support needs.

Participants sometimes and often experience:

• sudden deterioration;

• mental health crises;

• housing instability;

• carer breakdown; or

• changes in informal support arrangements.

Restricting reassessment access risks leaving participants without adequate supports during periods of crisis and may increase hospitalisation, institutionalisation, and family breakdown.

8. Suspension and Revocation Powers

Page 6

The Bill will legally allow participant plans to be suspended where communication attempts are unsuccessful and permits revocation of participant status after extended periods of non-contact.

These powers disproportionately affect:

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

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

The provisions lack adequate safeguards and fail to recognise the communication barriers many participants experience.

9. Automated Administrative Decision-Making

The Bill permits greater use of automated administrative systems, including automated claims processing and decision-making functions.

Automated systems carry significant risks, including:

• algorithmic bias;
• procedural unfairness;
• inaccessible review processes; and
• errors disproportionately affecting vulnerable participants.

The Bill lacks sufficient transparency, oversight, and safeguards regarding automated decision-making which is detrimental to people with disabilities and their families

10. Centralisation of Ministerial Power and Delegated Legislation

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

• ministerial determinations;
• delegated legislation; and
• future legislative instruments.

Critical Participant Rights and Eligibility Criteria

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

The Bill significantly centralises executive power while reducing certainty and protections for participants.

11. Inadequate Consultation and Co-Design

The consultation process for this Bill has been inadequate given the scale and significance of the proposed reforms.

Meaningful consultation with people with disability requires:

• accessible materials;
• sufficient timeframes;
• genuine co-design; and
• appropriate support for participation.

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

This National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 represents one of the most significant restrictions on disability rights since the creation of the NDIS.

The proposed amendments:

• narrow access to supports;
• increase administrative barriers;
• reduce participant flexibility;
• centralise ministerial power;
• weaken procedural fairness protections; and
• prioritise fiscal containment over participant rights and inclusion.

While measures addressing fraud and provider misconduct are necessary, these objectives should not come at the expense of the rights, dignity, and participation of people with disability.

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;

• sustainability weighting in reasonable and necessary decisions;

• expanded ministerial powers to reduce supports;

• mandatory loss of unspent funds;

• broad suspension and revocation powers; and

• automated decision-making provisions lacking safeguards and independent oversight.

The NDIS must remain a rights-based, participant-centred scheme that promotes inclusion, autonomy, dignity, and equal participation for people with disability.