SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION

COMMITTEE

Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill

2026

27th May 2026

To: The Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Dear Committee Secretary,

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. As a NDIS participant, I believe this Bill requires further scrutiny and targeted amendments before it proceeds, as several proposed changes directly impact my day-to-day living and independence.

My specific concerns and recommendations regarding the Bill are detailed below:

FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY REPORTING

Subjective Interpretation of Functional Capacity The proposed Bill introduces a new definition for ‘functional capacity’ (subsection 9B(1)). Furthermore, it grants the Government and state/territory authorities the power to determine who can access the scheme by establishing assessment criteria and tools (proposed subsection 9B(2)). I strongly disagree with the new proposed sub section(9B{3} I believe this framework is currently too open to interpretation. Depending on the assessor, the interpretation of “functional capacity” and the phrasing of questions can vary significantly, leading to inconsistent and potentially unequitable outcomes.
The Need for Standardised Questioning People with disabilities have highly varied degrees of function. To ensure this new reporting style is a fair improvement in evaluating participant needs, the NDIS must mandate a strictly standardised assessment. The NDIS itself must dictate the exact questions asked and the functionality degrees required, rather than leaving this to the discretion of individual assessors.
Real-World Case Study: Phrasing Matters To illustrate why standardised questioning is critical, consider my personal circumstances.
- The Problematic Question: If an assessor asks, “Can you stand independently?” my answer is technically “No.”
- The Accurate Question: If that same assessor asks, “Can you stand, and for how long?” my answer is “Yes, I can stand with the assistance of my mobility aids (orthotic boots and Canadian crutches).”
- Context Matters: The exact length of time I can stand depends on multiple fluctuating factors, including whether it is a “good day” and if my energy levels are strong enough to support balancing and walking short distances, otherwise I am in a motorised wheelchair to access anywhere.
- Guardians, Parents and Carers know these participants better than any assessors and should the participants require assistance with these Functional tests they should be allowed an advocate

Recommendations

Before this Bill passes, I urge the Committee to ensure that:

Assessments are standardised: Mandatory, uniform question sets are designed co- operatively with the disability community and participants.
Assessors rely on functional reality: Questions must be designed to capture real- world lived experiences rather than broad, yes/no clinical interpretations
That the new rules that allow the NDIS to change functional limits appears to make the budget fit the disability not the disability fit the budget.

Impact Statement on Proposed Mandatory Registration and Section

48 Changes

1. Current Operational Model

As a self-managed participant with an ABN, I effectively manage my own care at no extra cost to the NDIS:

Employment: I hire support workers on a casual basis under the SCHADS Award and pay workers’ compensation.
Payroll: All timesheets are monitored through an accounting program using Single Touch Payflow to carefully track hours and funds.

2. Financial and Administrative Burden of Registration

The proposed mandatory registration for high-risk supports will create an unreasonable barrier for self-managed participants who directly employ their own staff:

Cost: Registration and auditing fees will cost me between $3,000 and $10,000.
Red Tape: The administrative load and regulatory requirements of being a registered provider are not designed for self-managed, individual employers.

3. Unintended Risk of Plan Reviews

My NDIS plan hours have historically never matched the exact hours outlined in Occupational Therapists’ functional reports. However, I have successfully achieved the necessary care outcomes by employing staff efficiently without exceeding my allocated funding. If forced to become a registered provider, it would immediately trigger a review of these hours by larger corporate providers, fundamentally jeopardizing my flexible, self-directed support model Alternative concept: that self-managed participants are not required to be a Provider but must submit details of the management eg, Payroll program, proof of Insurances, Employment agreements and agree to an audit when required by the NDIS no more than once yearly.

Due to time constraints, I have bulleted additional cost-saving measures to consider moving forward:

SCHADS Awards: Change care worker cancellation notice to 48 hours instead of 7 days (projected multi-million-dollar savings).
Allied Health: Shift cancellation policy to 24 hours rather than 48 business hours to prevent excessive last-minute charges (projected multi-million-dollar weekly savings).
Coordination Roles: Assess the qualifications and functions required for Support Coordinators and Plan Managers.
Fee Structures That the Government undertake a review of fee charges in comparison to what a private patient is charged for the same service.

LAC Engagement: Review the Local Area Coordinator program, as current contact levels (e.g., twice in 4 years) are inadequate.

In conclusion, at its core, the NDIS was designed to give people with disabilities the same choice and freedom as anyone else. It empowers participants to control their own lives, manage daily tasks, and participate in social outings with whatever level of assistance they need.

While understanding the budget issues of the NDIS in the future, I encourage the Government to hold to the original vision for the NDIS.

Sincerely