Submission 4266 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026

Date: 30 May 2026

Submitted by:

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

This submission is being written from the perspective as a plan nominee for my child with a physical disability as well as from an allied health provider. As a plan nominee, I have direct experience navigating the NDIS system, advocating for my child’s needs, and managing the complexities of plan implementation. I am acutely aware of the challenges that families face in ensuring their loved ones receive the supports they require to live safely, participate in the community, and achieve their goals.

As a provider working in the disability sector, I see first-hand the positive impact that individualised supports, therapies, and community participation have on people’s lives. I also witness the strain that uncertainty, funding cuts, and administrative barriers place on participants, families, and the workforce.

The proposed changes in the Bill risk making the system less responsive, less equitable, and less supportive for those who need it most. As an occupational therapist and advocate for people with disability, I am deeply concerned about the profound implications of the proposed amendments for participants, families, therapists, support providers, and the broader community.

Key Concerns

Departure from Individualised, Person-Centred Support o The Bill introduces broad Ministerial powers to reduce funding for groups of supports, moving away from individualised decision-making.

o Funding reductions could be made without proper assessment of each person’s needs, risking arbitrary cuts that do not reflect participants’ circumstances.

o The NDIS was established to support people based on their unique disability

Cuts to Social and Community Participation and Therapy Supports o The Bill proposes a 50% cut to social, civic, and community participation funding, and a 10% cut to some capacity building daily activity funding (including therapies), starting 1 October 2026.

o These supports are not optional extras; they are essential for leaving home, building relationships, participating in community life, and maintaining independence.

o Such cuts risk increased isolation, loss of routine, reduced confidence, and greater burden on families and carers.

Tightening of Eligibility and Functional Capacity Assessment o The Bill redefines functional capacity, assessing what a person can do without assistance, technology, or environmental supports, and excluding personal and environmental factors.

o This approach is inconsistent with the social model of disability and international best practice, which recognise that disability arises from the interaction between impairments and environmental barriers.

o The new definition risks underestimating support needs, especially for those with cumulative or intersecting disabilities.

o As An Occupational Therapist I am acutely aware of the intersection between what a person can do, the impact of their environment and occupations/ activities has. I have assessed functional capacity for over 30 years as an occupational therapist, and it is imperative that environmental supports personal factors be considered. A person’s functional capacity must be considered holistically.

Stricter Permanence and “Appropriate Treatment” Requirements o The Bill requires participants to undertake “all appropriate treatment” before being considered eligible, regardless of financial, geographic, or personal barriers.

o Many people cannot access recommended treatments due to poverty, workforce shortages, inaccessible services, trauma, or lack of records.

o The right to refuse treatment must be protected, and inability to access or tolerate treatment should not exclude people from the Scheme.

Reduced Reassessment Rights and Plan Suspension Risks o The Bill extends reassessment timeframes, limits who can request reassessment, and narrows what counts as exceptional circumstances.

o Plans may be suspended if the Agency cannot contact a participant, posing serious safeguarding risks for those with communication barriers, homelessness, or fluctuating engagement.

o No participant should lose supports without demonstrated accessible communication attempts, independent review, and consideration of safety.

Expansion of Automated Decision-Making o The Bill allows for automated administrative action and decision-making, including in eligibility and funding allocation.

o Disability assessment requires nuanced clinical judgement and understanding of context, which cannot be replaced by algorithms.

o There must be strict limits on automation, mandatory human review rights, and transparency regarding decision-making processes.

o Have we not learnt from Robo debt and the impact that had on members of the community. The proposed changes are following the same path.

Pricing and Market Sustainability Concerns o The Minister’s new power to set maximum NDIS prices risks prioritising budget reduction over participant need and workforce sustainability.

o Capped pricing may worsen workforce shortages and reduce access to essential services, especially for home modifications and assistive technology.

o Many providers are already operating on minimal profit margin as places increased risk of providers ceasing services and closing. This reduces choice and control to participants, reduced person centred services.

Insufficient Safeguards and Oversight o The Bill provides minimal legislative safeguards, limited transparency, and weak appeal rights regarding funding reductions and plan changes.

o There is a lack of robust human rights, gender, First Nations, and socioeconomic impact assessments.

o Transitional rule-making powers are highly discretionary and lack adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

Personal Perspective as a Plan Nominee and Provider

As a plan nominee for my child with a physical disability, I have direct experience navigating the NDIS system, advocating for my child’s needs, and managing the complexities of plan implementation. I am acutely aware of the challenges that families face in ensuring their loved ones receive the supports they require to live safely, participate in the community, and achieve their goals. I fear eligibility changes and changes to assessment of functional capacity may mean my child will be removed from the NDIS when he has already demonstrated permanent impairment and substantially reduced functional capacity. He will no longer receive therapies (physiotherapy, podiatry) or assistive technology (wheelchair, orthotics, however his disability will remain. Without ongoing therapy he will require increased support in the future which will end up costing more.

The proposed changes in the Bill risk making the system less responsive, less equitable, and less supportive for those who need it most.

Recommendations

In light of these concerns, I urge the Committee to:

Delay implementation of the Bill pending meaningful consultation with people with disability, families, and the sector, and completion of comprehensive impact assessments.
Remove or substantially limit Ministerial powers to impose broad funding cuts without individual assessment.
Retain environmental and personal factors within functional capacity assessments, in line with the social model of disability.
Protect the right to refuse treatment without losing access to the NDIS.
Strengthen safeguards around plan suspension and participant contact, ensuring no one loses supports due to inaccessible communication.
Prohibit fully automated eligibility and planning decisions and require mandatory human review for all significant decisions.
Protect community participation and capacity building supports from arbitrary cuts.
Require Category A Rule status for key definitions and funding powers, ensuring state and territory agreement.
Conduct comprehensive human rights, gender, First Nations, and socioeconomic impact assessments before implementing major changes.

Ensure foundational supports exist and are adequately funded outside the NDIS before restricting access.

The NDIS was created to ensure dignity, participation, safety, and equality for people with disability. The proposed Bill, in its current form, risks undermining these principles and causing real harm to participants, families, and communities.

I urge the Committee and Parliament to protect the integrity of the NDIS by rejecting or substantially amending the Bill, and to commit to genuine co-design, transparent consultation, and strong safeguards for all Australians with disability.

Thank you for considering this submission.