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

Dear Committee Secretary,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

While ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS is important, this Bill contains measures that undermine the scheme’s original participant-centred goals. I urge the Committee to consider the following significant concerns and feedback regarding the draft legislation:

1. The Flaw of Standardisation in Functional Capacity Assessments (FCAs)

The Bill introduces standardised FCAs, yet current functional capacity assessments are already frequently ignored or left unread by planners. Standardising these tools fundamentally misunderstands the nature of disability. Disability is not standardised; it cannot be grouped under a single name or label. Much like the names “John” and “Jon” are pronounced the same but spelled differently, disabilities with the identical clinical diagnostic name present completely differently in every individual.

A uniform tool cannot account for whether a disability is present from birth, acquired, degenerative, or terminal. Standardisation strips away the individual person, treating distinct presentations as identical and erasing the specific ways a disability affects a participant’s daily life. [1]

2. Lack of Clarity on Diagnostic Frameworks and Workforce Duplication

The shift away from clear diagnostic criteria raises critical operational questions:

The Diagnostic Framework: Is the NDIS moving away from the DSM-V as a primary diagnostic tool? If so, what new framework or “Australia-first” model is being introduced to diagnose disability?
Access and Cost: What specific specialists will be required to administer these new tools? Will they be made available at a reasonable cost and with equal access nationwide?
Taxpayer Waste and Duplication: Funding a vast internal NDIA workforce of specialists and allied health teams to duplicate assessments that have already been performed by a participant’s existing medical team is an inefficient use of public

Excessive Ministerial Powers and Alternative Cost-Saving Measures

The Bill places excessive power in the hands of the Minster, effectively allowing one individual to act as judge, jury, and executioner over the lives of a quarter of the nation’s population, with no clear pathway for recourse. This represents an unprecedented and dangerous level of control over a vulnerable community. [1]

Before cutting vital participant funding, the Agency must first reduce its own administrative overheads. Significant structural savings can be achieved without harming participants by targeting systemic and back-office inefficiencies:

Automate Back-End Administration: Streamline and automate internal billing systems directly.
Eliminate Plan Managers: Phasing out intermediate plan management could save an estimated $1 billion overnight.
Streamline Partner Contracts: Reviewing and streamlining contracts with partner organisations could save approximately $2 billion. The Government must look at reducing the “chiefs” and administrative costs within the Agency before reducing front-line community supports.

Flawed Constraints on Budgets, Reassessments, and Co-morbidities

Disability is non-linear and unpredictable. The proposed planning restrictions introduce severe risks to participant safety:

The Consequence of Removing Budget Roll-overs: A participant cannot schedule an unexpected hospital admission around rigid budget periods. Upon leaving the hospital, a participant often requires a higher intensity of supports, which was previously sustained by unspent funds accumulated during their hospital stay. Eliminating roll-overs removes this vital buffer, creating administrative churn for NDIS employees while leaving participants at risk.
Unrealistic Reassessment Limits: Because disability is unpredictable, limiting the circumstances under which a plan can be reassessed is an unworkable and dangerous restriction.
Ignoring Co-morbidities: Funding limited strictly to a primary impairment ignores the reality of co-morbidities. A diagnostic manual like the DSM-V clearly outlines how conditions overlap; the NDIS cannot treat a primary disability in isolation from the secondary conditions it triggers.

5. Automation, AI, and the Human Element of Care

An automated machine or an AI algorithm cannot diagnose a human being, nor can it comprehend or manage human care. If decisions are outsourced to a standardised algorithm, a machine cannot identify where a participant sits on a spectrum (such as ASD) or understand individual nuance.

Crucially, the Bill does not clarify what AI frameworks are being introduced, who is held accountable when an AI makes a flawed decision, or how and by whom these automated decisions can be reviewed. Human-to-human interaction must remain the foundation of the NDIS. In the justice system, humans are held accountable for their actions; the administrative decisions governing disability services must remain subject to the same human accountability.

6. Premature Reform Sequencing and the Illusory Nature of Gap Payments

The NDIS must reduce its own administrative bloat and construct clear pathways between state, territory, and federal systems before enacting these changes. Restricting the NDIS without established alternatives risks leaving families and individuals without a viable safety net.

Furthermore, price guide reductions and the shifting of services create immediate funding and service gaps across state, territory, and federal boundaries. The assumption that participants or their families can simply cover these “gap payments” is entirely disconnected from financial reality. A pension income is strictly limited and fixed. [1]

Simultaneously, there are only 24 hours in a day to care for a person. When the Minister cuts funding for social, community, and activities of daily living (ADLs), the caring workload intensifies. A carer cannot create more hours in the day to enter the workforce and earn more money to cover a gap payment. Because it is physically and financially impossible for a carer to generate income to cover these shortfalls, there must be no gap payments. The NDIS must work collaboratively with all state, territory, and federal service sectors to raise Carer Payments and the Disability Support Pension (DSP) to fully absorb these differences, ensuring the vulnerable are not pushed into destitution.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To safeguard the rights and lives of people with disability and their families, I recommend that the Senate Committee reject the Bill in its current form and require:

Public and Accessible Co-Design: Any future co-design process must be fully transparent and accessible to every person with a disability and all workers within the disability industry, ensuring everyone has a direct say.

1. Robust Administrative Auditing: The Agency must fully clean its own house by automating billing, streamlining partner contracts, and reducing administrative bloat before touching participant packages.
1. Protection of Human Decision-Making: Legislate strict safeguards that guarantee AI and automated tools cannot override human assessment, and ensure all internal decisions are transparently reviewable.
1. Zero Gap-Payment Protection: Legislate an absolute protection against gap payment, requiring complete structural and financial alignment across all state, territory, and federal services, alongside immediate increases to the DSP and Carer Payments before any NDIS adjustments occur.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this submission. DO NOT PASS THIS BILL.

Sincerely,