Submission 446 — Australian Federation of Disability Organisations — NDIS Future Generations Bill

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Language used in this document 4

About AFDO 5

1 Acronyms and abbreviations………………………………………………………………8

2 Executive summary…………………………………………………………………………11

3 The need for sustainability of the Scheme………………………………………….19

4 Timing …………………………………………………………………………………………..21

5 Obligations under the CRPD…………………………………………………………….24

6 Gender impact………………………………………………………………………………..25

6.1 No gender strategy 26

6.2 No Gender Impact Assessment 26

6.3 Functional assessments and diagnostic bias 28

6.4 Shifting of care responsibilities onto women 28

6.5 What this means for the Bill 29

7 The need for co-design by people with disability …………………………………29

8 What was the “original intent” of the Scheme? ……………………………………35

9 Replacement supports must be in place before participants are removed

from the Scheme…………………………………………………………………………….38

10 The need for outcomes reporting, transparency and independent

evaluation………………………………………………………………………………………38

11 New Planning Framework………………………………………………………………..40

11.1 Overview 40

11.2 Prior attempt at consultation 42

12 Repeal of section 31 ……………………………………………………………………….43

13 Changes to eligibility ……………………………………………………………………….44

Page 2 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

13.1 Functional capacity 44

13.2 Definition of “functional capacity” 45

13.3 Change to disability requirements 46

13.4 Eligibility assessment tool 47

13.5 Permanence of impairment 50

13.6 Other available support systems 52

14 Changes to planning ……………………………………………………………………….54

14.1 Limiting reassessments 54

14.2 End dates 56

14.3 Suspension 56

15 Changes to supports……………………………………………………………………….58

15.1 “Reasonable and necessary 58

15.2 A support must “directly arise” from the impairment 59

15.3 Power of the Minister to issue a “support determination” 61

15.4 Power of the Minister to set funding caps 63

15.5 A more appropriate system? 64

15.6 Value for money 64

15.7 Effective and beneficial 64

15.8 What is reasonable to expect of family 65

16 Provider registration………………………………………………………………………..66

16.1 Background 66

16.2 The NDIS Review 67

16.3 The Taskforce 67

16.4 Department’s consultation 69

17 Automated decision making……………………………………………………………..71

18 Civil penalties and regulatory powers ………………………………………………..73

Endnotes 75

Page 3 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Acknowledgements

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) acknowledges Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples and traditional custodians of the land

now called Australia. We recognise their deep and continuing connection to Country and

community. We pay our respects to the traditional custodians of Country where we work,

connect, or meet, which always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land. We also pay our

respects to Elders past, present, and emerging.

People with disability

AFDO acknowledges people with disability in all their diversity, particularly those

individuals who have experienced or are continuing to experience violence, abuse,

neglect, or exploitation. We also acknowledge their families, carers, supporters, and

representative organisations and express our thanks for the continuing work done by the

many people supporting, protecting, and advancing the rights of people with disability.

Language used in this document

AFDO has chosen to use person-first language (like “people with disability”) in this

document. Person-first language puts the person before the disability and values the

individual by seeing them as a person, not a condition. This aligns with the CRPD and

matches the language used by all governments in Australia. Most other Australian

disability peaks also use person-first language.

We recognise many people with disability prefer identity-first language. Disability is a part

of their identity and shows a connection to their community and pride in disability. Views on

language reflect people’s identities, experiences of disability, and community attitudes. It is

a matter of individual choice and agency. AFDO respects everyone’s right to choose how

to describe their identity and experiences.

Page 5 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

About AFDO

Since 2003, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) has been the

pre-eminent national peak for people with disability, championing their rights through our

extensive member organisation network uniquely representing both disability-specific and

cross-disability population-based communities with a reach of over 4.5 million Australians.

We are, firstly, a Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO), led, governed, and predominantly

staffed by people with disability. We are also a Disability Representative Organisation

(DRO) funded by the Australian government. Our member organisations are national

disability-specific peak bodies, other disability-specific advocacy and support

organisations, and population based disabled people’s organisations. This ensures that

our work is informed by lived expertise and experience, truly representing our

communities.

AFDO is a strong, trusted voice for the disability sector. We advocate on national policy,

inquiries, and initiatives with the Federal and state and territory governments. We work to

build a community where people with disability:

• have real participation in community life

• can build respectful, valued relationships

• participate socially and economically, and

• contribute as valued citizens.

Our vision All people with disability can take part equally in all aspects of social, economic, political,

and cultural life.

Our mission Using the strength of our member organisations to harness the collective power of uniting

people with disability to change society into a community where everyone is equal.

Our strategic objectives  To represent the interests and united voice of our members and people with disability

at a national and international level in all relevant forums.

 To build the capacity, profile, reputation, and sustainability of AFDO through the

strength of our member organisations.

 To enhance the connection and influence in international disability initiatives by

policy, advocacy, and engagement, focused on the Asia Pacific region.

Page 6 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Our members

AFDO’s member organisations contribute to the national policy agenda and address

issues that impact the lives of people with disability in Australia. We understand that

disability-specific organisations play a key role in the provision of information and peer

support to people with disability and their families. This role keeps them closely connected

to their grassroots communities. Each community has its peak organisation that uses its

voice to advocate on issues.

Information about AFDO’s members can be found on our website.

Every Australian Counts

AFDO has been involved in Every Australian Counts since the beginning of the grassroots

campaign that successfully advocated for the introduction of the NDIS.

AFDO continues to support Every Australian Counts by auspicing the campaign, holding a

position on the Steering Committee, and providing administrative, governance, marketing

and communications support.

More information about Every Australian Counts, including its current priorities and

activities, is available on the Every Australian Counts website.

Australian Consumers & Carers Mental Health Forum

The Australian Consumers and Carers Mental Health Forum (Forum) is a national

initiative that brings together consumer and carer perspectives to develop shared positions

on mental health, suicide prevention and psychosocial disability reform. The Forum

supports stronger connections between mental health and disability policy and promotes

collaboration across a diversity of lived experience communities.

AFDO supports the Forum by providing administrative, coordination and organisational

support as well as holding a position on its Steering Committee. More information is

available at The Forum.

Page 7 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

1 Acronyms and abbreviations

This list of terms may assist users of this document to understand what we mean when we

use the following terms or abbreviations.

2024 Act National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)1

2024 Bill National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

ADM Automated decision-making

ADS or Strategy Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031, 2024 update: Building a more inclusive Australia2

AFDO Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

Bill National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 20263

Committee Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

CRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities4

CRPD Committee United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is a body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the CRPD by countries and provides recommendations to support the implementation of the provisions of the CRPD

DPO Disabled People’s Organisation. A non-government organisation governed, led, and constituted by people with disability, to be distinguished from organisations for people with disability,

DRCO Disability Representative and Carer Organisations funded by the NDIA to work with the NDIA on reforms, changes and improvements to the NDIS. AFDO is one of 27 DRCOs

DRO Disability Representative Organisation funded by the Commonwealth government to represent people with disability.

Page 8 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

AFDO is a DRO

Department Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

Disability Royal Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Commission or Exploitation of People with Disability DRC

Discussion Paper The Department’s discussion paper “NDIS rules: public consultation on new framework planning”5

Explanatory National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the memorandum or NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Explanatory EM Memorandum6

Integrity and National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding Act Safeguarding) Act 2026 (Cth)7

Minister Hon. Mark Butler MP, the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme

NDIA or Agency National Disability Insurance Agency

NDIS or Scheme National Disability Insurance Scheme

NDIS Act National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)8

NDIS Commission NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Commission

NDIS Minister Senator Hon Jenny McAllister, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme

NDIS Review Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme9

Provider definition The Department’s consultation paper “Getting It Right: A New consultation paper Definition for NDIS Providers”10

Taskforce NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce

Tribunal Administrative Review Tribunal (and before 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal)

Page 9 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

2 Executive summary

AFDO welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the Committee, and to

address the serious concerns we, and many in the disability community have with the Bill.

This response is informed by discussions with our members and member feedback, to be

constructive and focused on strengthening the sustainability and integrity of the Scheme,

viewed through the lens of human rights principles and the original intent of the Scheme,

and assessed from a systemic advocacy perspective that is centred on the rights and

experiences of people with disability.

AFDO supports the principle that the Scheme must be sustainable. However, in making

the Scheme sustainable, the government must recognise that sustainability is not limited to

financial sustainability, but also includes participants’ sustainability, and that participants

must be treated fairly, safely, with respect, and as individuals, in accordance with their

legal and human rights.

AFDO remains extremely concerned with the speed at which the government is seeking to

legislate what are fundamental and significant changes to the Scheme, that will affect all

participants, the family, kin, and carers. We are also disappointed with the lack of

engagement by the government with the disability community, including DROs, before the

Minister’s announcement on 22 April 2026, and subsequent limited and managed

engagement.

The government intends that the Bill will address the structural flaws in the original design

of the Scheme that are preventing the measures the government has previously

introduced to control spending from working as intended.11 However, the government

concedes that it is difficult to assess the impact of certain elements of the reforms as there

is no data, or insufficient data, detailed actuarial analysis is needed to fully understand the

impact of changes, or the details of the proposed changes are unknown.

Without complete information, careful consideration and taking appropriate time to

legislate and implement the changes, the government risks making further mistakes in the

design and implementation of the changes. We risk being in the same or a similar position

in several years.

Time is also needed to ensure that the government complies with its important obligations

under Article 4(3) of the CRPD. This Article requires governments to closely consult with

Page 10 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

and actively involve people with disability and their representative organisations in the

development and implementation of disability policy. Close consultation with and active

involvement of people with disability and their representative organisations has not

occurred in respect of the Bill. It must also occur in respect of any rules that are proposed

in connection with any of the amendments made by the Bill, including the eligibility

assessment tool and the support needs assessment tool, and the timing, testing,

implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the reforms.

The proposals in the Bill satisfy all four of the government’s own criteria that requires the

government to undertake a mandatory Gender Impact Assessment. A Gender Impact

Assessment has not been undertaken, or if undertaken, has not been included in the

Explanatory Memorandum. We respectfully submit that this Committee cannot fulfil its

important responsibilities in conducting an inquiry into the Bill without the Committee

having a reasonable opportunity to consider the Gender Impact Assessment carefully.

PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That the second reading of the Bill in the Senate, and implementation of all

reforms, are delayed until all the following have occurred:

a. People with disability and their representative organisations have:

(i) a reasonable time to fully consider the Bill and the rules

(ii) a reasonable opportunity to engage with the government, the

Parliament, and each of the states and territories, on the impacts of

the proposals, and

(iii) an opportunity to co-design with the government and each of

the states and territories workable solutions to deliver changes to the

Scheme that achieve the government’s stated objectives and protect

the rights and lives of people with disability.

B. The government complies with its obligations under Article 4(3) of the CRPD, and

closely consults with and actively involves people with disability and their

representative organisations (through authentic co-design) in the drafting of all

legislative instruments, the eligibility assessment and support needs assessment

tools, and the timing, testing, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the

proposed reforms.

Page 11 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

C. The government:

(i) complies with the requirements of the Budget Process Operational Rules

and prepares a Gender Impact Assessment of the provisions of the Bill and

all new Rules,

(ii) includes the details of the gender Impact Assessment in a revised

explanatory memorandum of the Bill, and

(iii) provides the Committee with that Gender Impact Assessment.

D. The Committee has a reasonable opportunity to properly consider the Gender

Impact Assessment (including the opportunity to seek the views of, and take

evidence from stakeholders, including people with disability and their

representative organisations).

E. The NDIA builds the necessary capacity within the Agency and comprehensively

trains and provides necessary supports to all Agency staff on the reforms and the

application of new legal tests and principles included in the Bill. This training must

be co-designed and delivered by people with disability and their representative

organisations.

F. The NDIA codesigns with people with disability and their representative

organisations a plan for further Agency staff development.

Additional recommendations

That if the Bill proceeds, it must be substantially amended and at a minimum, the

Committee should recommend that Parliament:

1. As part of the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the

government must design and implement the reforms holistically, and not in the

piecemeal, fragmented way the Department has adopted.

2. The government co-designs all reforms with people with disability and their

representative organisations through a process that is; participative, inclusive,

respectful, centred on lived expertise and experience, iterative, and outcomes

focused.

3. The reforms directed to fraud and Scheme integrity are grounded in data and

target provider behaviour, and do not restrict participants.

Page 12 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

4. The effectiveness of the reforms is measured and assessed by the extent to

which the changes improve the lives of participants, in addition to the amount of

costs saved or the level of reduction of fraud or other unlawful practices.

5. As part of the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the

government formally responds to all 26 recommendations and 139 supporting

actions of the NDIS Review and to all outstanding recommendations directed to

the Commonwealth government of the Disability Royal Commission.

6. As part of the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the

government plans for, and implements, comprehensive staff training and

supports to improve disability awareness and understanding of all personnel

across the Australian public service and government agencies, in accordance

with the recommendations of the NDIS Review, to embed a highly skilled,

person-centred, disability aware culture across the government.

7. As a matter of urgency, and in conjunction with the implementation of the

reforms proposed in the Bill, the NDIA develops and implements an NDIS

gender strategy.

8. The sequencing of the design, testing, and implementation of replacement

supports, whether “Thriving Kids”, Foundational Supports, or “mainstream

services“ must be carefully planned, co-designed, and completed before any

participant is moved off the Scheme under new eligibility and access

requirements.

a. Before any full rollout, the Agency must undertake comprehensive pilots

and independent evaluation of any of the reforms in the Bill, “Thriving

Kids“, Foundational Supports, and ICAN. The pilots and evaluation must

also actively involve people with disability and their representative

organisations.

b. The Bill must be amended to include rigorous obligations on the

Department, the Agency and the NDIS Commission to collect data and

other evidence, analyse, and report publicly, on the implementation of the

reforms and replacement supports, and their effects, including unmet

needs, unintended impacts, increased or additional risks to people with

Page 13 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

disability, and particularly vulnerable cohorts. Reporting must be regular,

consistent and transparent.

c. The Bill must also require the government to make changes to the reforms

that are necessary, based on this reporting process, particularly where

participants are placed at risk.

10. Before the New Framework Planning reforms commence on 1 April 2027, the

Department and the Agency must properly consult with people with disability

and their representative organisations. That consultation must be based on

complete information, complete transparency, and reasonable timeframes.

11. The Bill is amended to delete item 66, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill (that

proposes to repeal section 31 of the NDIS Act.

12. As part of the work recommended in our Principal Recommendations (see

above):

a. the Department works with people with disability and their representative

organisations to co-design a definition of “functional capacity” that is truly

“agreed”, and

b. the NDIA provides comprehensive training to NDIA staff to support

consistent and informed decision-making.

13. As a minimum, the Bill must be amended to provide that the government must

not make or propose any rule under proposed section 9B(2) of the NDIS Act

without:

a. providing complete and accurate information about the proposed rule, and

the criteria or tools the subject of the rule, to, and

b. co-designing the rule and those criteria or tools with,

people with disability and their representative organisations. The Department

must allow for a reasonable period for this work to be done.

14. The government accepts action 3.9 of the NDIS Review (and all of the NDIS

Reviews recommendations) in full and amends the Bill to provide for a

strengthening of the operation of the permanence criteria that follows the legal

principles of the Davis decision, while ensuring availability and affordability of

supports for people with disability outside the NDIS.

Page 14 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

a. Before accepting the automatic exclusion of people who have a

substantial reduction in functional capacity caused by a motor vehicle

accident or workplace injury, the Committee must be satisfied that all

motor vehicle accident compensation and workplace injury compensation

schemes can reasonably meet the reasonable and necessary support

needs of a person, and have a legal responsibility to meet the reasonable

and necessary support needs of a person.

b. Item 97 of the Bill is amended to insert in proposed subsection 25B(6) an

obligation on the Minister to be satisfied that the proposed alternative

system can reasonably meet the reasonable and necessary support needs

of a person, and has a legal responsibility to meet the reasonable and

necessary support needs of a person.

a. Item 13, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by adding to:

(i) subsection 48(2A)(a) to require the CEO to only approve a form that is available in different formats that are accessible to different participants, and so is accessible to all participants, and

(ii) subsection 48(2A)(b) an obligation on the CEO to ensure that any request for or statement of information or documents that the CEO requires is made or provided in a format accessible to the participant to whom the request is made or the statement is directed.

b. Item 20, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by changing the

heading to “At the end of section 48”, replacing the words “Repeal the

subsection, substitute” with “Add” and renumber the subsection (5).

c. Item 21, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by deleting the word

“unanticipated” from subsection 48A(3).

17. Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by:

a. giving the participant a reasonable opportunity to provide feedback on and

request changes to the renewed plan (which the CEO must consider,

acting reasonably), and

Page 15 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

b. making the renewed plan, and any decisions made pursuant to the

amendment recommended in paragraph (a) above, subject to merits

review.

18. Part 7, Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended to provide that:

a. an attempt to communicate with a participant is only reasonable if the

attempt is made in a manner consistent with the participant’s known

access requirements.

b. The written notice required under subsection 40A(2)(a) is in a format that

is consistent with the participant’s known access requirements

c. The date specified under subsection 40A(2)(a) is a date no earlier than 28

days after the date on which the notice is, or can reasonably be assumed

to have been, received by the participant.

19. The Bill is amended to remove informal supports from the reasonable and

necessary test.

20. The Bill is amended to remove the requirement that the support must directly

arise from the impairment in respect of which access meets the requirements to

the Scheme.

21. The Bill is amended to remove the power of the Minister to issue support

determinations. The Scheme must continue to fund all reasonable and

necessary supports of all participants who have access to the Scheme.

22. The Bill is amended to remove the power of the Minister to set funding caps.

23. The Bill is amended to prioritise the lived experience of participants in planning

decisions.

24. The Bill is amended to include in proposed subsections 34(1A)-(1C) and

34(1G)-(1H), in Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill all the factors currently included in

the Supports for Participants Rules.

25. a. The government accept the Taskforce’s advice that not all providers must be

registered and co-design amendments to the Act with people with disability and

their representative organisations amendments that define:

Page 16 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

(i) “NDIS provider”, and

(ii) “registered NDIS provider”.

b. That the government accept the Taskforce’s advice to include:

(i) a category of registration for participants who self-direct their supports and provide for processes for registration and audit, and

(ii) a Worker Registration Scheme for all “workers”.

c. That the government co-designs with people with disability and

their representative organisations amendments to the Act that

define:

(i) “self-directed support registration”, and

(ii) “worker”,

and co-design the associated registration and audit processes for self

directed support registration.

c. Part 2, Schedule 3 of the Bill is deleted from the Bill.

d. The Bill is amended to give to the NDIS Commission the regulatory powers

and civil remedy powers instead of the NDIA.

Page 17 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

3 The need for sustainability of the Scheme

The government calculates that the reforms proposed in the Bill are projected to reduce

growth in NDIS payments by $37.8 billion over four years from 2026–27, relative to the

NDIS Actuary’s updated projections. NDIS payments are projected to be below the 2025–

26 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook estimates by $23.9 billion over five years from

2025–26.12

We note that, according to the modelling of the NDIS reforms contained in the documents

produced by the NDIS Minister to the Senate, in response to Senate Orders for the

Production of Documents moved by Senator Steele-John and agreed by the Senate on 14

May 202613:

A the government estimates that 241,000 people who gain access to the Scheme before 1 January 2028 will be “exited” from the Scheme between 1 January 2028 and 30 June 2031

B. in addition, between 1 July 2027 and 30 June 2031, a further 105,000 people

who the government would have expected to access the Scheme if the

amendments were not made will be denied access to the Scheme

C. in total, the government estimates that by 30 June 2031, a total of 346,000

people with disability will be removed from or denied access to the Scheme

D. 33,000 participants will exit the Scheme before 30 June 2028. It is impossible

to determine if the modelling assumes any of that number will exit before 1

January 2028

E. the government expects to save a total of $38.1 billion as a result of the

changes in the Bill

F. the largest savings will come from the “Reset of Social Community and Civic

Participation and Capacity Building- Daily Activities Budgets for all participants”.

The government expects that between 1 July 2026 and 30 June 2030, it will

save a total of $13.2 billion (or 34.65% of the total savings) from this

measure

G. the next largest area of saving will come from introducing an “objective test” of

Substantially Reduced Functional Capacity. The government estimates total

savings between 1 July 2027 and 30 June 2030 of $9.3 billion (24.41% of the

total), and

Page 18 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

H. the savings estimated from “Making the Minister the decision maker on pricing

and related fraud measures”, which over the same period will total $0.9 billion

($900 million), or 2.36% of the total savings.

I. when the estimated savings from mandatory registration for high-risk providers

(a total of $200 million, or 0.63% of the $38.1 billion total) are considered, the

total savings from fraud and integrity measures are estimated to be $1.1 billion,

or 2.89% of the total savings.

AFDO supports the position that the Scheme must be sustainable. AFDO recognises it is

in the interests of everyone in the disability community, including participants, their

families, kin, and carers, to secure the future sustainability of the NDIS. As the NDIS

Review noted,

a human right that cannot be sustained is a human right denied.14

However, AFDO further advances that in making the Scheme sustainable, the government

must recognise that sustainability is not limited to financial sustainability, but also includes

participants’ sustainability, and that participants must be treated fairly, safely, with respect,

and as individuals, in accordance with their legal and human rights.

Sustainability is more than costs, it also includes the benefits of the NDIS.15

The question is not whether reform of the NDIS is necessary; rather, it is whether the

reforms proposed in the Bill, as currently drafted, will deliver a more sustainable Scheme

without leaving people who need reasonable and necessary supports to live safely and

participate fully in Australian life without that support and at risk of harm.

A Scheme that excludes or removes people who genuinely need support is not a

sustainable Scheme.

Reform efforts must not target participants. Those efforts need to be directed at improving

efficiencies and reducing bureaucracy within the Scheme and the Agency and at attacking

the real drivers of cost growth (fraud, poor initial planning, and provider overcharging).

The government notes that “many of the proposed amendments respond to, or have been

informed by, recommendations of the NDIS Review”.16 Some of that may be the case,

however, the government is not responding to the NDIS Review in an holistic, but rather

selective and piecemeal, way. The EM identifies one recommendation (out of 26) and four

Page 19 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

actions (out of 139 actions) of the NDIS Review that the Bill responds to or is informed by.

Amendments that are “informed by” the NDIS Review do not, necessarily, implement the

proposals or actions of the NDIS Review.

Further, if the Government continues to rely on the NDIS Review as the basis for ongoing

reform, it must also formally respond to the Review’s recommendations. It is not

appropriate to continue implementing reform in the name of the NDIS Review while leaving

its recommendations unanswered. A formal government response is necessary to provide

transparency, accountability, and clarity about which recommendations the Government

accepts, rejects, or intends to progress.

4 Timing

AFDO remains extremely concerned with the speed at which the government is seeking to

legislate what are fundamental and significant changes to the Scheme, that will affect all

participants, their family, kin, and carers. We are also disappointed with the lack of

engagement by the government with the disability community, including DROs, before the

Minister’s announcement on 22 April 2026, and subsequently.

The government recognises that changes are going to significantly affect participants, and

that the effects on some cohorts will be greater than others. For example, in discussing the

risks associated with tightening ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports criteria, the

government acknowledges that participants are likely to have some of their funding for

NDIS supports reduce, leading to lower overall NDIS spending,17 that these changes will

have a greater impact on some groups,18 and that participants will need to rely more

heavily on informal supports shifting responsibility to family, carers, informal networks and

the community (which may increase material risks of harm, abuse or neglect.19

This is likely to have direct flow on impacts to family members and kin (particularly of younger people) and may impact on the role of informal support under Australia’s Disability Strategy. Given most carers are female, these impacts may be disproportionately experienced by women.

Changes also have the potential to affect certain Closing the Gap outcomes.20

Page 20 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Despite this, the government has sought to push the Bill through the Parliament. Short

timeframes are inherently inaccessible. Further, many people with disability require

additional time to participate meaningfully in consultation processes.

The government intends that the Bill will address the structural flaws in the original design

of the Scheme that are preventing the measures the government has previously

introduced to control spending from working as intended.21 However, the government also

concedes that it is difficult to assess the impact of certain elements of the reforms as there

is no data22 or insufficient data,23 detailed actuarial analysis is needed ahead of

implementation to fully understand the impact of changes,24 or the details of the proposed

changes are unknown, as they will form part of a legislative instrument design that is still

subject to further work.25

Further,

Cuts are scheduled from October 2026, while foundational supports are not yet operational, not yet funded in many jurisdictions and not yet demonstrated to deliver genuine community inclusion. That’s not a transition plan. That’s a gap.26

Without complete information, careful consideration and taking appropriate time to

legislate and implement the changes, and without ensuring correct sequencing of the

changes, and without full consultation with people with disability and their representative

organisations, the government risks making further mistakes in the design and

implementation of the changes. We risk being in the same or a similar position in several

years.

The government has (finally) conceded that the introduction of New Framework Planning

needs to be delayed. We set out, in section 11, what needs to happen before 1 April 2027

to ensure that the design and implementation of New Framework Planning is a positive,

beneficial and sustainable change.

Put simply, the government, and each of the states and territories, must undertake full and

meaningful consultation on all the rules for New Framework Planning well before the

implementation date of 1 April 2027, which is less that 11 months away.

The same approach must be taken with the even more significant reforms contained in the

Bill.

Page 21 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

The government claims that the Bill introduces amendments which continue to support

implementation of critical recommendations of the NDIS Review and the Disability Royal

Commission.27 And yet, the government is yet to respond to all the recommendations of

the NDIS Review or those of the Disability Royal Commission.

Further, in relation to the timing, the government is ignoring both the advice and

recommendations from the NDIS Review and the Disability Royal Commission.

Action 25.2 of the NDIS Independent Review28 calls on the Department to undertake ’deep

public consultation on proposed legislative reforms’ including with people with disability,

families, carers, Disability Representative Organisations, providers and workers.

The Disability Royal Commission also found that ’people with disability are not sufficiently

involved in government decision-making processes and developing laws and policies that

may impact their human rights.

Time is also needed to ensure that the government complies with its important obligations

under Article 4(3) of the CRPD. This Article requires governments to closely consult with

and actively involve people with disability and their representative organisations in the

development and implementation of disability policy. We discuss this issue in greater detail

in section 5.

Close consultation with and active involvement of (and we would propose, authentic co-

design by) people with disability and their representative organisations has not occurred at

all in respect of the Bill. Consultation and active involvement of people with disability and

their representative organisations must also occur in respect of any rules that are

proposed in connection with any of the amendments made by the Bill, including the

eligibility assessment tool, the support needs assessment tool, and the timing, testing,

implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the reforms.

More time is also needed to ensure that the Agency builds the necessary capacity within

its own workforce, and comprehensively trains and provides necessary supports to,

Agency staff on the reforms and the application of new legal tests and principles

introduced by the Bill. This training must occur before the Bill is passed, given that some of

the new principles and tests will commence within seven days of the Bill receiving the

Royal Assent.

Page 22 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

The plans for further Agency staff development must also be agreed upon before the Bill is

passed. Any training and a required staff development plan must be co-designed with

people with disability and their representative organisations. Best practice also requires

this training to be delivered by or, at least to include, people with disability.

That training and development must also continue after the Bill is law, and as additional

new tests, principles and assessment tools are introduced. Further, the government must

plan for, and implement, comprehensive staff training and supports to improve disability

awareness and understanding of all personnel across the Australian public service and

government agencies, in accordance with the recommendations of the NDIS Review.

Lastly, the proposals in the Bill satisfy all four of the government’s own criteria that require

the government to undertake a mandatory Gender Impact Assessment. We discuss this

issue in greater detail in section 6.

A Gender Impact Assessment has not been undertaken or, if undertaken, has not been

included in the Explanatory Memorandum.

We respectfully submit that this Committee cannot fulfil its important responsibilities in

conducting an inquiry into the Bill without the Committee having a reasonable opportunity

to consider the Gender Impact Assessment carefully.

5 Obligations under the CRPD

The NDIS is one of Australia’s great human rights achievements.29 The NDIS policy is one

of a wide range of disability related policies and programs that support the CRPD, and the

NDIS is one of the main ways Australia implements its obligations under the CRPD.30

Australia ratified (that is, agreed to the terms of) the CRPD on 17 July 200831.

The CRPD creates an obligation on Australia (as a “States Party”) when developing and

implementing disability policy to “closely consult with and actively involve” people with

disability through their representative organisations32.

The CRPD Committee has clarified the scope of this central obligation of government.

Consultation with and the involvement of persons with disability is

a mandatory step prior to the approval of laws, regulations and policies, whether mainstream or disability specific. Therefore, consultations should begin in the early stages and provide an

Page 23 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

input to the final product in all decision making [sic] processes. 33 (our emphasis)

Further, to closely consult with and actively involve people with disability and their

representative organisations requires government to

systematically and openly approach, consult and involve, in a meaningful and timely manner34 (our emphasis)

people with disability and their representative organisations. We must also have access to

all relevant information.35

The government must also give

due consideration and priority to the opinions and views of organizations of persons with disabilities when addressing issues directly related to persons with disabilities [and has] a duty to inform organizations of persons with disabilities of the outcomes of [decision-making] processes, including an explicit explanation in an understandable format of the findings, considerations and reasoning of decisions on how views [of DPOs] were considered and why.36 (our emphasis)

Without each of these essential features, any consultation the government undertakes in

connection with the Bill, including any rules, will not comply with Australia’s obligations

under Article 4(3) of the CRPD.

In addition, the CRPD imposes obligations on member states in respect of

autonomy and individual choice37

non-discrimination38

independent living and community inclusion39

adequate standard of living and social protection40

We consider the extent to which provisions of the Bill are inconsistent with the CRPD as

part of our discussion of those provisions below.

6 Gender impact

While the reforms have been framed as necessary to ensure the sustainability of the

Scheme, our member, Women with Disabilities Victoria (WDV), is concerned that

Page 24 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

proposed changes risk disproportionately impacting women and gender-diverse people

with disabilities. AFDO shares this concern.

The cumulative impacts of tighter eligibility, reduced access to supports, reassessments,

and increased reliance on informal and (yet to be established) foundational supports may

deepen existing structural inequalities.

Further, these risks, and our concerns, are compounded by the lack of a Gender Impact

Assessment and Gender Responsive Budgeting, required by the government’s own

requirements and Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality.41

Women and gender-diverse people with disability already experience:

higher rates of poverty and housing insecurity increased exposure to gendered violence barriers to healthcare and employment disproportionate unpaid caring responsibilities, and systemic exclusion from mainstream services.

Women with disabilities are already substantially underrepresented in the NDIS,

consistently making up around 37% of participants since the Scheme launched in 2013, despite representing roughly half of Australia’s disability population.42

Since 2013, women with disability have faced several barriers applying for and receiving

support through the NDIS, including confidence levels; negotiation and self-advocacy skills

in a system that relies on those skills; gendered discrimination in diagnosis and the

medical system; and support for and recognition of their caring roles.43 These reforms risk

reinforcing and deepening this divide.

The following provides a high-level overview of some key gendered concerns arising from

the NDIS reforms.

For a detailed analysis of the specific gendered risks posed by the proposed reforms, we

recommend to the Committee the submission to this inquiry by Women with Disabilities

Australia. AFDO endorses and supports that submission.

6.1 No gender strategy

From the outset, the Scheme was designed and implemented as “gender-neutral”. The

Scheme has never benefited from a tailored gender equity framework and gender

inequality was not embedded as a policy lens. Despite the 2023 NDIS Review

Page 25 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

acknowledging that women face greater barriers to accessing the NDIS, it contained no

specific recommendations on gender.44 In 2026, we are still waiting for the government or

the Agency to develop and implement an NDIS gender strategy and a renewed NDIS

LGTBIQA+ strategy.

The reforms are occurring in the absence of a gender strategy, without proper

consideration and mitigation of the intended (and acknowledged) and unintended impacts

of the reforms on women and gender-diverse people.

6.2 No Gender Impact Assessment

Further, no Gender Analysis Summary or Gender Impact Assessment has been

undertaken (or, if a Gender Impact Assessment has been undertaken, it has not been

included in the Explanatory Memorandum).45 This is even though the government’s

national gender strategy46 highlights Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) as a key

mechanism to ensure that government policies and investments support gender equality.

and provides a framework for policy makers undertaking gender analysis and Gender

Impact Assessments.

Gender responsive budgeting weaves consideration of gender impact through the budget process and is a key way the Government can identify and fund measures that close gender gaps. Gender analysis of Cabinet Submissions and New Policy Proposals (NPPs) is a key tool for gender responsive budgeting, supporting policy developers and decision makers to understand and react to gender impacts.47

Australian Government departments are required48 to undertake gender analysis for new

policy proposals and Cabinet submissions. The level of gender analysis needed is

targeted and proportional to the potential impact, value and scope of the policy. Any new

policy proposal and Cabinet submission that meets one or more of the following criteria49

must include, in addition to the required Gender Analysis Summary, a Gender Impact

Assessment50:

Gender equality– the proposal relates to gender inequality, discrimination, bias

and/or gender-based violence. This criteria applies to proposals that will significantly

increase or limit:

Page 26 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

o access to resources for one gender compared with others (through income, payments, taxation, superannuation), and/or

o access to opportunities for one gender compared with others (including education, training, work, health programs, leadership, public office).51

Cohorts– the proposal targets cohorts of people who can be typically disadvantaged.

These cohorts, depending on the nature of the proposal, may include but are not

limited to people with disability52

Workforce– the proposal relates to a gender segregated industry, sector or

occupation. This criteria applies where a proposal impacts or interacts with a gender

segregated industry, sector or occupation. An industry, sector or occupation is

gender segregated where one gender comprises 60% or more of the workforce.53

Value– the actual or potential financial implications of the proposal is $250 million or

more. This captures proposals (whether expenditure, savings, revenue, and balance

sheet proposals, with actual or potential financial implications of $250 million or

more with no exceptions.54

6.3 Functional assessments and diagnostic bias

The shift to standardised functional capacity assessments risks further excluding women

and gender-diverse people from the NDIS.

There is a wide literature on gender bias in medical diagnosis and treatment. Research

shows that for a wide variety of conditions men receive more extensive investigation and

treatment than women. These gender biases also have implications for conditions that

have a greater prevalence in women than men, like Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic

Fatigue Syndrome and fibromyalgia.55

Women wait two to five years longer than men for many diagnoses, and conditions more

prevalent among women (including fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, endometriosis,

autoimmune conditions, and long COVID) often involve fluctuating symptoms.56

These factors mean that standardised functional assessment tools may under-capture the

support needs of women and gender-diverse people with disabilities.

Page 27 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

7 The need for co-design by people with disability

As the NDIS Review recognised:

there is much detailed work still to come to implement our recommendations. This work must continue the way it has begun — in partnership with people with disability. Continuing the engagement is the only way to ensure the success of these reforms and to continue to rebuild trust.60 (our emphasis)

The government’s lack of meaningful and reasonable consultation with people with

disability and their representative organisations to date, and the continuing failure to

commit to authentic co-design, through processes that are participative, inclusive,

respectful, centred on lived expertise and experience, iterative and outcomes focused,

makes a mockery of Minister Butler’s commitment given at the National Press Club on 22

April 2026 of;

“Nothing about us, without us!”61

The Minister described the “deeper reform” being done through genuine and respectful

work with the States, and with the community as “engagement”. This will include:

(a) the design of the Inclusive Communities Fund

(b) commissioning supported independent living, plan management and support

co-ordination, and

(c) differentiated pricing, ongoing implementation of New Framework Planning,

“and more”.62

The Minister made no commitment to the co-design of any part of the reforms. Similarly,

the Department is

committed to engaging with the disability community and states and territories on longer-term reforms.63 (our emphasis)

We note that, in response to comments made by the Senate Standing Committee for the

Scrutiny of Bills in its Scrutiny Digest No. 6 of 2024, dated 15 May 2024, and comments

made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its Scrutiny Report No. 6

of 2024, dated 15 May 2024, on the 2024 Bill, the government issued an Addendum to the

Page 29 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Explanatory Memorandum for the 2024 Bill. In that addendum, the government claimed

that;

there is no broadly accepted process for ‘co-design’ and no existing statutory definition. Including an express reference to ‘co-design’ could lead to legal uncertainty about whether an instrument is validly made, significantly impacting the operation of the Scheme.64

We do not agree with this erroneous statement. We remind the Committee that

“consultation” is not “co-design”.

The term co-design is increasingly common in government discourse like this, yet a clear and shared definition is lacking. Like co-production, co design has been ‘granted an influential role in the future of … public governance … Consequently, co-design risks being little more than a buzzword in the public sector.65

True “co-design” is

a design-led process, involving creative and participatory principles and tools to engage different kinds of people and knowledge in public problem-solving.66

Central to co-design is recognition that it

goes beyond consultation by building and deepening equal collaboration between citizens affected by, or attempting to, resolve a particular challenge. A key tenet of co-design is that users, as ‘experts’ of their own experience, become central to the design process.67

This requires the following three key elements:

Process: an iterative, design-led approach oriented towards creation or innovation.

Principles: participative, inclusive, equal collaboration, respectful, iterative and

outcomes-focused values are at the heart of this approach

Practice: creative and tangible methods for telling, enacting and making.68

If the reforms to the Scheme are to be successful, it is essential that these reforms are co-

designed by the disability community - people with disability, their families, carers and

representative organisations. The government must recognise that;

Page 30 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

people with disability are the experts in their own lives and must lead the design of solutions.69

The effectiveness of the reforms is measured and assessed by the extent to which the changes improve the lives of participants, in addition to the amount of costs saved or the level of reduction of fraud or other unlawful practices.

Page 31 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS

That the second reading of the Bill in the Senate, and implementation of all reforms, are delayed until all of the following have occurred:

A. people with disability and their representative organisations have:

(i) a reasonable time to fully consider the legislation and the rules (ii) a reasonable opportunity to engage with the government, the Parliament, and each of the states and territories, on the impacts of the proposals, and

(iii) an opportunity to co-design with all governments workable solutions to deliver changes to the Scheme that achieve the government’s stated objectives and protect the rights and lives of people with disability.

B. The government complies with its obligations under Article 4(3) of the CRPD, and closely consults with and actively involves people with disability and their representative organisations (through authentic co-design) in the drafting of all legislative instruments, the eligibility assessment and support needs assessment tools, and the timing, testing, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the proposed reforms.

C. The government:

(i) complies with the requirements of the Budget Process Operational Rules and prepares a Gender Impact Assessment of the provisions of the Bill and all new Rules, (ii) includes the details of the gender Impact Assessment in a revised explanatory memorandum of the Bill, and

(iii) provides the Committee with that Gender Impact Assessment.

D. The Committee has a reasonable opportunity to properly consider the Gender Impact Assessment (including the opportunity to seek the views of, and take evidence from stakeholders, including people with disability and their representative organisations).

E. The NDIA builds the necessary capacity within the Agency, and comprehensively trains and provides necessary supports to all Agency staff on the reforms and the application of new legal tests and principles included in the Bill. This training must be co-designed and delivered by people with disability and their representative organisations.

F. The NDIA codesigns with people with disability and their representative organisations a plan for further Agency staff development Page 32 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 1

As part of the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the government must design and implement the reforms holistically, and not in the piecemeal, fragmented way the Department has adopted.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 2

The government must co-design all reforms with people with disability and their representative organisations through a process that is participative, inclusive, respectful, centred on lived experience and lived expertise, iterative, and outcomes focused

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 3

The reforms directed to fraud and Scheme integrity are grounded in data and target provider behaviour, and do not restrict participants.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 4

The effectiveness of the reforms is measured and assessed by the extent to which the changes improve the lives of participants, in addition to the amount of costs saved or the level of reduction of fraud or other unlawful practices.

Page 33 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 5

As part of the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the Australian Government formally responds to all 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions of the NDIS Review and to all outstanding recommendations directed to the Commonwealth government byf the Disability Royal Commission.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 6

As part of the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the government plans for, and implements, comprehensive staff training and supports to improve disability awareness and understanding of all personnel across the Australian public service and government agencies, in accordance with the recommendations of the NDIS Review, to embed a highly skilled, person-centred, disability aware culture across the government.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 7

As a matter of urgency, and in conjunction with the implementation of the reforms proposed in the Bill, the NDIA develops and implements an NDIS gender strategy.

Page 34 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

8 What was the “original intent” of the Scheme?

The government has two rationales for the Scheme reforms proposed in the Bill, namely:

(a) making the NDIS sustainable by returning the Scheme to its “true purpose”70, or

resetting the Scheme to its “original intent”,71 and

(b) attacking the fraudulent activity impacting the Scheme as a whole, leading to

lower quality services, exploitation and harm.72

We provide comments on the reforms addressing fraudulent activity in section ##.

Given the focus on the need to return the Scheme to its “true purpose” and original intent”,

it is critically important to understand that original intent, and to assess the extent to which

the reforms proposed by the Bill achieve that reset.

According to the government, the NDIS was

intended to operate as a targeted, insurance-based Scheme for people with permanent and significant disability. It is not intended to operate as an unconstrained funding source for all disability related needs.73 (our emphasis)

We agree with this limited description of the NDIS, as far as it goes. However, it is not an

accurate statement of the original intent of the Scheme. Further. we also need to make it

very clear to the Committee that the NDIS is not currently, and never has been, an

unconstrained funding source for all disability related needs.

To the extent to which the government seeks to assert that the NDIS is an unconstrained

funding source for all disability-related needs, that assertion is false, inflammatory, and not

supported by the evidence.

Equity and dignity were at the heart of the long battle for disability rights and, ultimately,

the NDIS.74 The NDIS was built on the promise of inclusion.75

The founding philosophy of the NDIS was clearly based on principles of human rights

(aligned with the CRPD), social inclusion, and individual choice and control.

The Scheme was designed to emphasise the dignity of the individual, promote

independence, allow people with disability to participate fully in society, and make their own decisions about their lives.76

Page 35 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

This marked a significant shift from the previous welfare-based model of disability support

in Australia to a person-centred, social insurance-based approach.

The principles of choice and control included the ability (and right) of a participant to

choose their providers, manage their plans and budgets, and tailor supports to their

individual goals and needs, and directly relevant to their personal circumstances.

The Scheme was also built on early intervention and long-term investment. By providing

timely and appropriate supports, the NDIS aimed to reduce future costs and improve life outcomes for people with disability.77

The real “original intent” of the NDIS can be determined by the speech given by the then

Prime Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, to the House of Representatives78 on 29

November 2012, on the second reading of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill

2012. That speech rests on a single foundational insight:

The risk of disability is universal, so our response must be universal. The only solution is therefore a nation-wide, demand-driven system of care tailored to the needs of each individual and established on a durable, long term basis. That can only be accomplished through the united effort of the community through the positive action of government, supported by the Australian people through our public revenues. Therefore, this bill will inscribe in our laws a substantial and enduring reform that will fundamentally change the nature of disability care and support in this nation.79 (our emphasis)

The Prime Minister characterised the then existing system as fundamentally broken. It:

• was reactive rather than proactive, responding only to crisis

• rationed support by arbitrary budget allocations rather than genuine need

• left people with disability in isolation, poverty, and without dignity, and

• denied Australia the human and economic contribution of people with disability.

The Prime Minister set out the underpinning principles of the Scheme80, as:

Choice and control

People with disability have the right to exercise genuine choice and control over the

planning and delivery of their supports, including managing their own funding if they wish.

Page 36 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Individualised support, based on reasonable and necessary needs

Rather than rationed, budget-driven allocations, support would be determined by actuarial

assessment of each person’s reasonable and necessary needs, and respond to each

individual’s goals and aspirations, across their lifetime.

Early intervention

The scheme would provide support at the earliest appearance of disability to minimise its

impact and prevent deterioration.

Sustainability of informal care

It would work with families before they reached crisis point to ensure that informal care

networks remained sustainable.

Human rights-based

The Scheme advances the human rights of people with disability, and gives effect (in part)

to Australia’s obligations under the CRPD.

Long-term durability

The Scheme was designed to offer certainty and peace of mind over a person’s entire

lifetime — not just in moments of acute need.

It is important to judge the proposed reforms against these principles as the original intent

of the Scheme. Any changes to ensure the long-term durability and sustainability of the

NDIS must also continue to ensure the other fundamental principles of the Scheme are

maintained.

The Prime Minister also made it clear that the Bill was the result of

extensive work on design, funding and governance undertaken with states and territories and with people with disability, their families and carers, and with key other stakeholders.81

Further, the government intended to engage in further consultation before passing the Bill.

Unlike the present situation, the government:

(referred) this bill to a Senate committee to allow consideration in detail. And we will continue to work with the states and territories, with people with disability, their families, carers and advocates. We will also undertake public consultation on the legislative instruments that will be developed in conjunction with the bill. Any comments received through NDIS consultation processes

Page 37 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

will be considered. It is our intention to bring a final version of the bill for a vote in the budget session of parliament next year (that is, May 2013, 6 months from the date of this speech) ahead of the start of the first stage (of the Scheme).82

9 Replacement supports must be in place before participants are removed from the Scheme

The “Thriving Kids” reforms, and the plans to introduce other foundational supports are not

part of the reforms proposed in the Bill. However, the government’s clear objective to

reduce the number of participants in the Scheme relies on shifting current NDIS

participants on to those new systems.

The sequencing of the design, testing, and implementation of replacement supports,

whether “Thriving Kids”, Foundational Supports, or “mainstream services” must be

carefully planned, co-designed with people with disability and their representative

organisations, tested and completed before any participant is moved off the Scheme under

new eligibility and access requirements.

Without this, there are serious risks associated with participants losing supports before

replacement systems are designed, tested, independently evaluated, and operational.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 8

The sequencing of the design, testing, and implementation of replacement supports, whether “Thriving Kids”, Foundational Supports, or “mainstream services” must be carefully planned, co-designed with people with disability and their representative organisations, tested and completed before any participant is moved off the Scheme under new eligibility and access requirements.

10 The need for outcomes reporting, transparency and independent evaluation

In various places in the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, the government acknowledges

that additional data, careful policy design, and execution of safeguards will be necessary

to ensure, for example, that participants are not placed at risk because of changes to the

Page 38 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Scheme83, to uphold the rights and ensure accessibility for participants with

communication and decision support needs84, or to increase gender equality85.

As we have already noted, the government also concedes that it is difficult to assess the

impact of certain elements of the reforms as there is no data86 or insufficient data,87

detailed actuarial analysis is needed ahead of implementation to fully understand the

impact of changes,88 or the details of the proposed changes are unknown, as they will

form part of a legislative instrument design that is still subject to further work.89

It is, therefore, necessary that as elements of these reforms are designed, refined, and

rolled out, they are based on evidence, and that their effects are monitored. Any rollout

must be staged and designed to allow participants to provide real-time feedback. The

Agency must also act promptly on that feedback.

AFDO is calling for comprehensive pilots and independent evaluation before any full rollout

of any of the reforms in the Bill, “Thriving Kids”, Foundational Supports, and ICAN. These

pilots and the subsequent evaluation must be conducted with full independence from

influence by the Agency. They must also actively involve people with disability and their

representative organisations to ensure that testing, reviewing, and modifying of the rollout

uses genuine lived experience input.90

To achieve this, the Bill must have a much stronger emphasis on outcomes reporting,

transparency and independent evaluation of the reforms and replacement supports, and

their effects. This must include mandated reporting on unmet needs, unintended impacts,

and particularly vulnerable cohorts. Reporting must be regular, consistent and critically

transparent. The government must also commit to making further changes that evaluation

and reporting identify, particularly where participants are placed at risk.

Page 39 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 9

(a) Before any full rollout, the Agency must undertake comprehensive pilots and independent evaluation of any of the reforms in the Bill, “Thriving Kids”, Foundational Supports, and ICAN. The pilots and evaluation must also actively involve people with disability and their representative organisations.

(b) The Bill must be amended to include rigorous obligations on the Department, the Agency and the NDIS Commission to collect data and other evidence, analyse, and report publicly, on the implementation of the reforms and replacement supports, and their effects, including unmet needs, unintended impacts, increased or additional risks to people with disability, and particularly vulnerable cohorts. Reporting must be regular, consistent and transparent.

(c) The Bill must also require the government to make changes to the reforms that are necessary, based on this reporting process, particularly where participants are placed at risk.

11 New Planning Framework

11.1 Overview

AFDO welcomes the government’s decision to take heed of the disability community and

DROs to not “rush rollout of the new planning framework”,91 and further delay its

implementation until 1 April 2027 recognising that this is eleven months away at present.

AFDO also welcomes efforts to simplify and make fairer the pathway for people with

disability to access the supports they need. People with disability deserve an assessment

process that is person-centred and fair.

However, a single assessment tool can never fully capture every person’s unique

circumstances. ICAN can help structure planning, it cannot replace the nuanced

understanding that comes from lived expertise and experience and the clinical evidence

gathered over a lifetime. The tool needs to be complemented by professional judgement

and strong safeguards. ICAN must not override medical evidence or the long-standing

knowledge of the individual and their health professionals, families and carers who have

supported a person with disability over their lifetime.

Page 40 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

AFDO also emphasises that people with disability and their advocates must have clear

rights to provide additional evidence and to challenge or appeal outcomes if the tool does

not reflect their real needs.

At the 2025-2026 Supplementary budget estimates hearings in the Senate, the Minister for

the NDIS stated that ICAN will

put a structured conversation at the heart of the planning process. Accredited assessors will meet with participants and their families and supporters as necessary to have a strengths based conversation to understand their individual disability support needs. The ICAN will be used alongside questionnaires on each participant’s personal and environmental circumstances. Importantly, this process will be collaborative. …I acknowledge there is a lot more to be done.92

There is significant uncertainty in the disability community, and including among DROs,

about how the tool and the assessment needs process will work. No further information or

clarity was provided by the Department’s public consultation process on New Framework

Planning.

Before this new system is implemented, the Department and the Agency must properly

consult with people with disability and their representative organisations. That consultation

must be based on complete information, complete transparency, and reasonable

timeframes. That consultation cannot repeat the mistakes of the Department’s previous

attempt at consultation on the New Framework Planning reforms.

The information that has been released raises a number of substantive concerns about the

proposed assessment model and planning framework. In particular, the disability

community has not been provided with evidence demonstrating the reliability and validity

of the proposed Support Needs Assessment and the ICAN assessment tool across the

diverse disability cohorts that will be assessed under the new system. ICAN was not

developed in and has not been used for disability assessments and is unproven in this

area.

There is also limited transparency regarding how assessment outcomes will translate into

funding decisions, what safeguards will apply during the transition to the new framework,

and what review and appeal mechanisms will be available to participants.

Page 41 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Members of the disability community are calling for:

(a) full transparency about how you get from assessment to budget and what inputs

and evidence will inform that process, including if support needs assessment is

only for core supports, and if there is going to be other (perhaps diagnostic-

specific) templated packages of other supports

(b) the need to know if this is evidence about cohorts and the role that algorithmic

and automated decision-making will play

(c) the right to have our individual evidence considered

(d) a Medicare-funded item for support needs assessment be piloted at the same

time, and

(e) the need to see how the tool works in detail.93

11.2 Prior attempt at consultation

The previous consultation process was significantly limited and fractured by the absence

of key documents and information necessary to enable meaningful engagement by people

with disability and their representative organisations.

The Department did not release exposure drafts of the proposed legislative instruments

that will establish the rules governing the new planning framework. In addition, explanatory

documentation and key operational information relating to several core elements of the

proposed system were not made available. These include the rules relating to plan

budgets, support needs assessments, NDIS supports, and plan variations.

Without these materials it was not possible for stakeholders to understand how the

different components of the framework will operate together or how they will affect

participants.

As a result, the previous consultation process did not provide the disability community with

sufficient information to offer informed and constructive feedback on the proposed reforms.

The absence of key documentation and design information also raised serious concerns

regarding meeting Australia’s obligations under Article 4(3) of the CRPD (which we have

commented on above).

AFDO is committed to constructive engagement with government to ensure that reforms to

the NDIS planning framework strengthen participant rights, safety, and scheme

Page 42 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

sustainability. However, the consultation process must provide the transparency,

information, or level of engagement required to achieve this outcome.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 10

Well in advance of the New Framework Planning reforms commencing on 1 April 2027, the Department and the Agency must properly consult with people with disability and their representative organisations. That consultation must be based on complete information, complete transparency, and reasonable timeframes.

12 Repeal of section 31

Section 31 of the NDIS Act sets out the core principles the Agency must follow when

preparing, reviewing, and replacing a participant’s plan. The NDIA must ensure that the

planning process, so far as reasonably practicable:

is individualised

is directed by the participant

respects the role of family and carers, and

builds capacity.94

The Bill proposes repealing section 31.95

Repeal of this section is an assault on the fundamental principles of the Scheme. The

removal of individualised plans, control and choice of the participant and disregard of

capacity building is completely inconsistent with any objective of returning to the Scheme’s

original intent. Section 31 embodies that original intent.

This proposed amendment is also inconsistent with, and contravenes Australia’s

obligations under Article 3(a) (autonomy and individual choice) and Article 19 (independent

living and community inclusion) of the CRPD.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 11

The Bill is amended to delete item 66 in Part 6 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.

Page 43 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

13 Changes to eligibility

13.1 Functional capacity

The government considers that the

ongoing use of ‘access lists’, originally intended to support Scheme roll out, has also created automatic eligibility for people with certain conditions.96 (our emphasis)

We stress that the term “access lists” is not used in the NDIS Act, nor is it a term defined

or used in the context of determining access to the Scheme, currently.

It is also important to note that there is no “automatic eligibility” under the NDIS Act. To

access the Scheme, a person must apply for access, and the NDIA CEO must “decide

whether or not the prospective participant meets the access criteria”.97 This requires the

CEO to be satisfied that the person meets each of:

(a) the age requirements

(b) the residential requirements, and

(c) the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements.98

In making these decisions, the CEO has the power to require a prospective participant, or

another person, to provide reasonably necessary information and the prospective

participant to undergo an assessment or examination.99

Access to the Scheme has always required a person to show that an impairment impacts

their functional capacity, and not a diagnosis label.100 Further, despite the term not

being defined in the Act, the courts and the Tribunal have developed, and consistently

applied, a clear and well-understood definition of “functional capacity”.

If, contrary to the Act, the Agency is providing access “automatically” or based on an

“access list” or diagnosis label, and “allowing a significant number of Scheme entrants who

were never intended to be supported by the NDIS”101, the solution is to train Agency staff

in the correct application of sections 20, 21, 24 and 25 of the NDIS Act.

The Bill defines ‘functional capacity’ (in proposed subsection 9B(1))102, but does so in

terms very different to the settled definition in case law. The Bill also makes a minor

Page 44 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

amendment to subsections 24(1)(c) and 25(1)(c)(i)103. These sections set out the

“disability requirements and the “early intervention” requirements that a person must

satisfy to access the Scheme. We deal with each of those matters in turn.

13.2 Definition of “functional capacity”

The concept of functional capacity is not currently defined in the Act. It is also

not “clearly defined” in the NDIS rules or operational guidance.104 The Bill

proposes to insert105 a definition of “functional capacity” in a new section 9B of

the NDIS Act, in the following terms:

(1) A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to undertake the activity:

(a) without assistance from other people, assistive

technology or modifications; and

(b) in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.

(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make provision for determining any matter for the purposes of subsection (1). (our emphasis)

The government says that this is an “agreed definition”.106 It does not say by

whom it is agreed. If, by this, the government means that the definition is that

settled by case law, that is not correct.

AFDO agrees that there is merit in including in the NDIS Act a clear definition

of “functional capacity”. However, that definition should codify the meaning of

the term consistent with the interpretation given by the Courts and the Tribunal.

The definition must refer to a person’s ability to undertake the relevant activity

reliably. Further, paragraph (1)(a) must also include personal cost (eg, fatigue,

distress, and deterioration).

The proposed definition (and paragraph (1)(b)) is not consistent with the social

model of disability. By expressly excluding the impact of the person’s

environmental and personal circumstances, the proposed definition is

reintroducing a medical model and is removing the fundamental principle of

Page 45 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

individualised need. This is inconsistent with Article 3(a) of the CRPD. Further,

context matters. There must be recognition that a clinical setting is not an

everyday environment.

Any definition must also include the whole person and not isolate one

impairment or one activity.

The definition must also recognise that capacity must be assessed over time,

not at a single point in time, and that a period of stability does not negate overall

impairment.

Based on our collective experience to date we are not confident that NDIA staff

will be adequately equipped to apply the definition consistently, within the

context of complexities and nuances of different disabilities. This is an

additional reason why our additional recommendation 3 (see above) is

needed.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 12

As part of the work recommended in our Principal Recommendations (see above):

(a) the Department works with people with disability and their representative organisations to co-design a definition of “functional capacity” that is truly “agreed”, and

(b) the NDIA provides comprehensive training to NDIA staff to support consistent and informed decision-making.

13.3 Change to disability requirements

Currently, a person meets the disability requirements of the Scheme if107:

(a) the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive,

neurological, sensory or physical impairments or the person has one or more

impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable; and

(b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and

(c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity

to undertake one or more of the following activities:

(i) communication;

(ii) social interaction;

Page 46 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

(iii) learning;

(iv) mobility;

(v) self-care;

(vi) self-management; and

(d) the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social or economic

participation; and

(e) the person is likely to require NDIS supports under the National Disability Insurance

Scheme for the person’s lifetime.

It is also important to note section 24 also provides that

(a) an impairment that varies in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to

require NDIS supports under the Scheme for the person’s lifetime, despite the

variation,108 and

(b) an impairment that is episodic or fluctuating may be taken to be permanent, and

the person may be taken to be likely to require NDIS supports under the Scheme for

the person’s lifetime, despite the episodic or fluctuating nature of the impairments.109

The Bill will amend subsection 24(1)(c) so that it reads

the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity in relation to one or more of the following activities (considering each activity as a whole):…110

AFDO does not oppose this change, provided that “functional capacity” is defined in a way

consistent with settled case law, and in accordance with our additional recommendation

8(a).

Failing agreement to that definition of functional capacity in the legislation, AFDO would

recommend that the Committee oppose the amendment to subsection 24(1)(c)

13.4 Eligibility assessment tool

The proposed new subsection 9A(2) will let the government, with the agreement of all the

states and territories, make NDIS Rules to set:

criteria to assess people’s functional capacity; and

tools to measure functional capacity.111

Page 47 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

This will allow the government, following the work of the Technical Advisory Group, to

implement a standardised assessment tool to determine whether people meet the

functional capacity threshold for access to the Scheme, as announced by the government.

112

There is also a suggestion that the new eligibility processes will include comparison of

participants’ functional capacity with their “peers”.113

The Bill also allows the NDIA to use standardised assessment for current participants,

and remove them if they do not meet the set threshold.114.

A standardised assessment would be a major change from the current approach, where

people can use reports from their doctors or allied health practitioners.

A standardised assessment is totally inappropriate. It will not be able to capture the full

range of disability, resulting in some people being overlooked or disadvantaged. A single

assessment tool can never fully capture every person’s unique circumstances and cannot

replace the nuanced understanding that comes from lived expertise and experience

combined with clinical evidence gathered over a lifetime. The tool must not override

medical evidence or the long-standing knowledge of the individual and their health

professionals, families and carers who have supported a person with disability over their

lifetime.

Using a single “point in time” standardised tool to assess functional capacity is not

consistent with a return to the Scheme’s original intent.

Peer comparison is also not consistent with a return to the original intent of the Scheme.

This is likely to have significant consequences for participants and future applicants with

psychosocial disability, autism, and fluctuating or episodic conditions.

It is also inconsistent with action 3.1 of the NDIS Review.115

The NDIS Review recommended that

existing functional capacity assessments should be transparently tested with the

groups and disability types they have been validated for to inform the design of the

new access process

Page 48 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

any assessment should cover a broad range of domains in order to be strongly

considered for use (e.g. cognitive, language, social-emotional, motor and adaptive

behaviour)

there should be an accepted basis for comparing results from two or more

acceptable instruments that might be used to assess function in a given domain

any assessment considered should take into account that disability can fluctuate

over time

any assessment must be based on the environments in which a person is in.

the assessment should be able to be undertaken by the applicant’s treating

professional and should be funded by government.116

To complete the reform, following passage of the Bill, the government needs to link the

definition of functional capacity to the outputs of the functional assessment process. There

is no information available about the proposed relationship between the definition and the

assessment process or its outputs, between the assessment outputs and any peer

comparison, nor with any proposed content of the “category A” rules that will be required.

This will be determined, in large part, by the work of the Technical Advisory Group. We are

being asked to provide feedback on and agree to an unknown process, yet to be

developed.

We are very concerned based on experience that in developing and consulting on these

matters, the Department will take the same position as, and repeat the same mistakes

with, the development of the new support assessment process and the ICAN tool (see

section 11.2).

Again, there is a very serious risk that the reform process will proceed in a piecemeal,

fragmented way, which will not be designed or considered holistically. The Department’s

approach is totally inconsistent with, and contrary to, the government’s approach (as

published by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) to achieve the

Government’s vision and goals for the care and support economy, in which an “holistic,

harmonised approach to the implementation of these reforms is vital”.117

Page 49 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

There is also a serious risk that the government will not adopt all the recommendations of

the NDIS Review, in action 3.1, in designing the tool or the process.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 13

As a minimum, the Bill must be amended to provide that the government

must not make or propose any rule under proposed section 9B(2) of the

NDIS Act without:

(a) providing complete and accurate information about the proposed rule, and the criteria or tools the subject of the rule, to, and

(b) co-designing the rule and those criteria or tools with, people with disability and their representative organisations. The Department must allow for a reasonable period for this work to be undertaken.

13.5 Permanence of impairment

The Bill proposes provisions118 to clarify the definition of permanence by introducing a

concept of ‘all appropriate treatment’ being exhausted before an applicant can satisfy the

permanence factor of the disability requirements under the NDIS Act. The government

says this is consistent with Recommendation 3 (action 3.9) of the NDIS Review that

“legislative change to strengthen the operation of the permanence criteria be

considered”.119

We note that action 3.9 from the NDIS Review is in the following terms:

The Australian Government should update and clarify legislation to support a more effective approach to determining access. This should include updating the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and NDIS Rules to support the implementation of the changes described in Actions 3.1, 3.2 and 3.7. This should also consider the need for legislative changes to strengthen the operation of the permanence criteria while ensuring availability and affordability of supports for people with disability outside the NDIS (following the Federal Court decision known as National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis)120 (our emphasis)

Page 50 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Proposed section 25A(2) does not follow, but reverses, the Federal Court’s decision in

NDIA v Davis121 (‘Davis’). This is directly inconsistent with the NDIS Review’s

recommendation.

In Davis, the Court found where a possible treatment for a person’s impairment existed,

but the person could not realistically access the treatment for reasons such as being

unable to afford it or their geographic location, this would not bar them from accessing the

NDIS.

The government is also pursuing these changes before it has ensured the availability

and affordability of supports for people with disability outside the NDIS.

A person must try ‘all appropriate treatment’ before they can access the NDIS.122

‘Appropriate treatment’ means treatment that is:

(a) evidence-based;

(b) can reliably be expected to materially improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of the

impairment(s); and

(c) is regularly undertaken or performed in Australia. 123

This requirement is inconsistent with the NDIS being proactive, and not reactive. It is also

inconsistent with a Scheme designed on the principle of early intervention, that provides

support at the earliest appearance of disability to minimise its impact and prevent

deterioration. The exclusion of people who refuse treatment for non-medical reasons124

interferes with a person’s right to control their own body and is inconsistent with the

fundamental principle of choice and control.

The requirement also applies to ‘early intervention’125, even though early intervention is

meant to help people get support sooner and avoid higher support costs later.

It is not clear how the provisions apply to treatments that may only have an effect over a

sustained, lengthy period, to progressive conditions, or where treatment slows, but does

not reverse or improve, the deterioration of functional capacity

These changes do not return the Scheme to its original intent.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 14

The government accepts action 3.9 of the NDIS Review (and all of the NDIS

Reviews recommendations) in full and amends the Bill to provide for a strengthening of the operation Pageof the51permanenceof 85 criteria that follows the Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs legal principles of the Davis decision, while ensuring availability and Legislation Committee affordability of supports for people with disability outside the NDIS.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

13.6 Other available support systems

Earlier this year, the Federal Court of Australia decided that a person does not have to

show other government programs or supports cannot meet their needs to demonstrate that

they are eligible to access the NDIS.126

The effect of the decision was that access to the Scheme was not denied because other

supports might be available, but those other supports were taken into account in the

planning process, in determining the “reasonable necessary” supports the person needs.

In this way, the NDIS would fill any gap between the supports provided by the other

support system and a person’s actual needs – but not double-up. The Bill proposes to

overturn this decision127.

The Bill proposes two ways in which people receiving support from other systems will be

denied access to the NDIS:

first, if a person’s impairment is from a car accident or workplace injury and is

covered by a compensation scheme, the person will not qualify for the NDIS;128 and

second, the Minister, with the agreement of the states and territories, can make

NDIS rules to exclude other groups or people who receive certain supports.129 The

Explanatory Memorandum says the aged care system could be one of these.130

If the aged care system is included, this will lead to unfair outcomes and leave some

people without the supports they need. For example, people who already access aged

care may be denied disability-specific supports through the NDIS, even when the aged

care program is a ‘capped’ program that may not provide the same measure of those

supports as may be obtainable under the NDIS. This could also have a disproportionate

impact on certain communities, including First Nations people, who qualify for aged care at

50 years of age.131

The amendments assume that the alternative scheme can reasonably meet the

reasonable and necessary support needs of a person, or has a legal responsibility for

meeting the reasonable and necessary support needs of a person.

Page 52 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Before declaring a support is an alternative support for an impairment under the rules, the

Minister must be satisfied that it is “not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the

impairment through” the Scheme.132

This does not expressly require the Minister to determine the extent to which the proposed

alternative system can reasonably meet the needs of a person. Nor is there any obligation

on the Minister to assess the extent to which the proposed alternative system can provide

the same measure of those supports as may be obtainable under the NDIS.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 15

(a) Before accepting the automatic exclusion of people who have a

substantial reduction in functional capacity caused by a motor vehicle

accident or workplace injury, the Committee must be satisfied that all

motor vehicle accident compensation and workplace injury

compensation schemes can reasonably meet the reasonable and

necessary support needs of a person, and have a legal responsibility

to meet the reasonable and necessary support needs of a person.

(b) Item 97 of the Bill be amended to insert in proposed subsection 25B(6)

an obligation on the Minister to be satisfied that the proposed

alternative system can reasonably meet the reasonable and necessary

support needs of a person, and has a legal responsibility to meet the

reasonable and necessary support needs of a person.

14 Changes to planning

14.1 Limiting reassessments

Currently, participants can request a plan reassessment at any time.133 Under the

proposed changes in the Bill134, participants can only request a reassessment if:

there has been a significant and ongoing change in their ongoing support needs;

and

the change affects either a participant’s:

o functional capacity in an ongoing way – meaning changes that relate directly to an existing impairment, or a new impairment that meets the access

Page 53 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

criteria, and cause a substantial reduction in the person’s functional capacity;

or

o personal or environmental circumstances – meaning ‘unanticipated’ changes such as losing a primary informal carer, or changes in living, work

and/or education arrangements.

Because the change must be ‘ongoing’, temporary injuries or temporary changes to care

arrangements would not be enough to seek a reassessment. In these cases, a participant

may only be able to seek a variation of their plan.135

The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that if a participant runs out of funding early,

but their support needs have not changed significantly, their request for reassessment will

be refused.136

The Bill also creates a stricter process to request a reassessment and gives the NDIA

more control over whether and how it responds to requests. The Bill:

extends the time for the NDIA to decide a reassessment request from 21 to 90

days137

requires the NDIA to consider a reassessment request only if the request is made in

a specific form and includes any information requested by the NDIA,138 and

removes safeguards for participants if the NDIA does not decide a reassessment

request in time.139

Instead of deciding a reassessment request, the NDIA may decide to transition the

participant to a new framework plan.140 This indicates a preference in some cases to

transition participants to new framework plans, rather than reassessing existing plans. This

is significant, because decisions to transition participants into new framework plans are not

reviewable.

Reassessments are one of the few ways to respond to changes in participant’s lives.

These proposed changes will leave participants with fewer options if their plan no longer

meets their needs.

There is no requirement on the CEO to ensure that the form of the request that is

mandated is accessible to all participants, or to require the CEO to ensure that the

required form is available in different formats that are accessible to different participants.

Page 54 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

There is also no obligation on the CEO to ensure that any request for or statement of

information or documents that the CEO requires is made or provided in a format

accessible to the participant to whom the request is made or the statement is directed.

A foreseeable change that has serious impacts on a participant is not a ground for seeking

a plan reassessment. The change must be unanticipated. This must be included as a valid

ground for a request for reassessment.

The existing safeguards in section 34(4) must remain. If the CEO does not determine a

reassessment request within 90 days, the CEO must be deemed not to have made a

decision on that request.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 16

(a) Item 13, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by adding to:

(i) subsection 48(2A)(a) to require the CEO to only approve a form that is available in different formats that are accessible to different participants, and so is accessible to all participants, and

(ii) subsection 48(2A)(b) an obligation on the CEO to ensure that any request for or statement of information or documents that the CEO requires is made or provided in a format accessible to the participant to whom the request is made or the statement is directed.

(b) Item 20, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by changing the heading to “At the end of section 48”, replacing the words “Repeal the subsection, substitute” with “Add” and renumber the subsection (5).

(c) Item 21, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by deleting the word “unanticipated” from subsection 48A(3).

14.2 End dates

The Bill would replace ‘reassessment dates’ in old framework plans with an ‘end date’. The

main practical effect is that participants will no longer be able to carry unused funding over

to their next plan. At the ‘end date’, plans will automatically ‘renew’.141

The renewed plan will last for a further 12 months. One-off supports from the old plan (ie

funding for assistive technology or home modifications) will not carry over. The Minister

has the power to make additional ‘alterations’ to the new plan (eg time-limited funding or

temporary variations may not continue into the new plan).

Page 55 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Importantly, there is no requirement the ‘renewed plan’ is prepared with the participant,

meaning a plan can be renewed for a further 12 months without the participant having the

opportunity to identify whether their support needs or circumstances have changed. This

would need to be addressed separately by plan reassessment or variation processes (see

section 14.1).

An automatic plan renewal will not be a reviewable decisions. According to the

Explanatory Memorandum, this is because renewed plans are replicating a planning

decision that was made by the CEO and was subject to merits review at the time it was

made.142

However, the scope of possible ‘alterations’ which the Minister may make to new plans is

unclear, including whether such changes might substantially affect participants’ supports.

This raises questions about whether such changes should properly be treated as new

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 17

Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended by:

(a) giving the participant a reasonable opportunity to provide feedback on and request changes to the renewed plan (which the CEO must consider, acting reasonably), and

(b) making the renewed plan, and any decisions made pursuant to the amendment recommended in paragraph (a) above, subject to merits review. decisions, with participants having the right to review the ‘renewed plan’.

14.3 Suspension

The Bill will allow the NDIA to suspend plans where it is trying to get information from a

participant, and the participant is not able to be contacted. Before suspending a plan,

the NDIA must make ‘reasonable attempts’ to contact the participant. If the participant

remains uncontactable after 90 days, the NDIA can suspend their plan.

The CEO is required to give the participant a written notice of a decision to suspend

their plan, specifying the date of effect. If the participant then contacts the Agency, the

CEO will be required to decide to either cease the suspension or make a request for

information within 28 days. 143

Page 56 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

The Explanatory Memorandum suggests144 that ‘reasonable attempts’ might include

writing to the participant, giving them ‘enough time’ to respond, and ensuring they are

not unable to reply due to circumstances such as hospitalisation. However, the Bill does

not require these attempts to meet a participant’s accessibility needs. It also does not

require the NDIA to consider whether plan suspension would pose a risk to the

participant (even though the Explanatory Memorandum suggests risks should be

considered).

A person can seek a review of a decision to suspend their plan.

The Bill also allows a participant’s plan to be revoked if they remain uncontactable for

90 days after their plan has been suspended,145 meaning the participant loses access

to the NDIS.

These changes significantly increase the consequences of participants being

‘uncontactable’, with limited safeguards in place.

AFDO understands and accepts the principle of having a process where there is genuinely

no contact from a participant. However, stronger safeguards are needed to protect

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 18

Part 7, Schedule 1 of the Bill is amended to provide that:

(a) an attempt to communicate with a participant is only reasonable if the attempt is made in a manner consistent with the participant’s known access requirements.

(b) The written notice required under subsection 40A(2)(a) is in a format that is consistent with the participant’s known access requirements

(c) The date specified under subsection 40A(2)(a) is a date no earlier than 28 days after the date on which the notice is, or can reasonably be assumed to have been, received by the participant.

participants who are vulnerable, unwell, or affected by administrative error. There must be

an obligation to attempt to communicate with a participant in a manner consistent with the

participant’s known access requirements.

Page 57 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

15 Changes to supports

15.1 “Reasonable and necessary

The Bill fundamentally changes how ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports are to be

understood. Significantly, it removes section 31 (see section ##) and replaces it with

amendments to section 17A and new proposed section 17B, and changes to the objects

(section 3) and principles (section 4) underpinning the Scheme.146

The Bill substitutes the reference to ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ in section

3(1)(d) with ‘NDIS supports…consistent with the financial sustainability of the Scheme.’

While the objects and principles have not guaranteed particular outcomes, they provide

a framework under which planning decisions should be based on individual

circumstances, personal goals, and choice and control, with plans shaped by

participants.

Together, these changes shift the focus of decision-making about ‘reasonable and

necessary’ supports away from the individual needs and goals of participants and

toward the financial sustainability of the Scheme. This is inconsistent with returning the

Scheme to its original intent.

It is also inconsistent with Article 3(a) of the CRPD.

Proposed section 17B147 introduces principles requiring the CEO to prioritise Scheme

sustainability when making planning decisions, including by:

funding only supports that arise directly from impairments that meet the access

criteria;

recognising the role of community and informal supports;

confirming that participants are responsible for day-to-day living costs, including

costs incurred whether or not a person has a disability; and

ensuring funding is distributed fairly and consistently across participants with similar

needs.

Treating informal supports as a predetermined expectation creates a real risk that the

burden of care will be shifted onto family or carers without proper recognition of what

constitutes an unreasonable burden, including the broader economic and social

contribution family and carers make when they can remain engaged in work and the

community.

Page 58 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Informal supports cannot be assumed, treated as guaranteed for participants, or used to

justify reduced plan budgets, and must not replace professional supports or drive budget

decisions.

Formal supports must be funded on the basis of need, not on assumptions about unpaid

care.

Participants are best placed to advise on appropriate support needs. Any consideration of

informal supports must recognise capacity limits, sustainability, and the long-term toll on

carers and relationship.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 19

The Bill is amended to remove informal supports from the reasonable and

necessary test.

15.2 A support must “directly arise” from the impairment

The Bill undoes the ‘whole of person’ approach148 to funding supports that the disability

community secured in the 2024 Act. The amendment made by the 2024 Act enables a

support to be funded if it relates to a need ‘arising from’ an impairment that meets access

to the Scheme, noting a support need may arise from the interaction of multiple

impairments or a participant’s other circumstances (eg their location).149

The proper application of these provisions was confirmed in February 2026 by the Federal

Court of Australia.150 The Court described this approach as ‘commonsense’ and made

clear the law requires supports to be funded even if the need for the support has multiple

causes, as long as one cause is the impairment that gave the person access to the NDIS.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says the outcome in Eastham represents an

‘unintended expansion’ of the Scheme,151 and is contrary to the 2024 Act to explicitly link

the need for a reasonable and necessary support to an impairment that meets the

disability or early intervention requirements.152

We strongly disagree. This does not reflect the Government’s position set out in the

Explanatory Memoranda to the 2024 amendments, or the understanding of the disability

community from discussions at the time.

Page 59 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

It is useful to set out what the government said in the 2024 Explanatory Memorandum in

relation to new paragraph (aa) that was added to section 34(1).

Item 46 inserts an additional criterion (new paragraph 34(1)(aa)), which provides that the supports must be necessary to address the needs arising from an impairment that meets the disability requirements (in accordance with section 24) or early intervention requirements (in accordance with section 25). …

This amendment clarifies that the NDIS only funds supports for impairments that meet the disability or early intervention requirements, as per the Scheme’s original intent. This amendment reflects the Agency’s current operational guidelines and will provide clarity to participants and other service systems about what supports will be funded through the NDIS. It will not require participants to repeatedly prove their disability.153

Undoing the “whole of person” and “multiple impairments” concepts, and requiring a

support to “directly arise” from the impairment for which a participant has satisfied the

access requirements are not consistent with a return to the Scheme’s original intent, and

are unworkable in practice.

A test of ‘directly arising’ is likely to be difficult to apply in practice, as it would involve

questions of judgement about complex areas of people’s lives. Chronic health conditions

can be nuanced and are not always neatly separable from disability-related support needs.

For example, people living with MS are often encouraged to actively manage comorbid

conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression because these can

influence MS outcomes. Research also suggests that carrying extra weight may be linked

to other health conditions common in MS and may contribute to a pro-inflammatory state associated with neurological inflammation.154

In some cases, these other health conditions may be a contributory cause of disability or

may contribute to the progression or worsening of disability. Plan supports will therefore

need to properly account for those needs.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 20

The Bill is amended to remove the requirement that the support must directly

arise from the impairment in respect of which access meets the Page 60 of 85 requirements to the Scheme. Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

supports” determined on an individualised basis and are not consistent with a return to

the Scheme’s original intent.

They are also inconsistent with Articles 3(a) and 19 of the CRPD.

Under the NDIS Act currently162, the Minister may give written directions to the NDIA

about the performance of its functions. The direction must be consistent with the NDIS

Act, the regulations or an instrument made under the NDIS Act.163 The Minister cannot

give a direction that relates to a particular individual.164 The Minister must not give a

direction unless each of the states and territories agrees.165

If Part 4 remains in the Bill, these safeguards must be included.

Any determination must be subject to judicial review. If must also be subject to

disallowance166 or the sunset provisions167 under the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth).168

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 21

The Bill be amended in section 34A to remove the power of the Minister to

issue support determinations. The Scheme must continue to fund all

reasonable and necessary supports of all participants who have access to

the Scheme.

15.4 Power of the Minister to set funding caps

The Bill169 gives the Minister power to make other determinations that set caps on the

supports a participant can get, including:

a maximum amount of funding for particular supports;

a maximum frequency and/or duration for the provision of supports; and

maximum worker-to-participant ratios for specific supports or classes of supports.

These limits can apply across the Scheme or to targeted groups of participants.

Government says the caps will be supported by published, peer-reviewed evidence

about what level of support is ‘appropriate and beneficial’ for participants.170 For

example, a determination could cap the intensity of a particular therapy if evidence

suggests that additional hours do not improve outcomes.171

Page 62 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

This proposed change aims to standardise funding decisions and support the

Government’s broader aim of constraining growth in NDIS expenditure, by setting hard

caps that may limit funding to less than the full cost of a ‘reasonable and necessary’

support.

The examples in the Explanatory Memorandum make this clear. In one example, a

participant’s reasonable and necessary community supports are assessed at $44,000,

but a support determination is in place to limit their actual spending to $30,000.

This amendment is another that is not consistent with returning the Scheme to its

original intent. It is also inconsistent with Article 3(a) of the CRPD

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 22

The Bill is amended to remove the power of the Minister to set funding caps.

15.5 A more appropriate system?

As part of the changes made by the 2024 Act, the government removed a previous

requirement to consider if another system should fund a support. This was removed

because the NDIS supports lists were intended to draw the lines for what is and is not

covered by the NDIS. The Bill brings back the requirement.

This means even if a support is on the ‘in’ list, the NDIA could still refuse it if it decides

another system should provide it (e.g. health system). It is unclear why the requirement

should be reintroduced given the NDIS supports lists already serves this purpose.

15.6 Value for money

The Bill requires new factors to be considered in deciding172 whether a support is ‘value

for money’ such as:

if comparable supports are available at a lower cost; and

where the support is equipment or modifications, whether it is more cost-effective to

purchase or lease the support.

The Explanatory Memorandum says these new considerations are ‘currently factors in

the Supports for Participants rules but will be strengthened by inclusion in the primary

Page 63 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

legislation’.173

While some of these factors are currently in the Supports for Participants Rules, other

helpful factors (eg whether a support will have long-term benefits for the participant)

have been left out of this amendment.174 The overall effect of these amendments are

likely to push decisions towards lower cost supports.

15.7 Effective and beneficial

The Bill will prioritise peer-reviewed and generalised research about the effectiveness

(or not) of a support over a participant’s lived experience, or evidence from their treating

practitioners of the use of that support.175

These changes would make it harder for participants to get funding for some supports,

particularly for more novel or tailored supports such as certain therapies, even if they

can show those supports have had good results for them.

Planning decisions must be informed by the lived experience of participants, rather than

by generalisations about the condition or assumptions about what someone “should”

need.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 23

The Bill is amended to prioritise the lived experience of participants in

planning decisions.

15.8 What is reasonable to expect of family

For children in the NDIS, the Bill will require the NDIA to consider the ‘presumption’ that

parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children,

including supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural

support.176

As with the changes to ‘value for money’ (see section 15.6), these amendments

selectively import factors currently included in the Supports for Participants Rules, while

not including factors from the Rules regarding whether the child’s care needs are

greater than a child without a disability, or whether the support would improve the

Page 64 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

child’s capacity.177

Additionally, the Bill will change how any risks to a participant or carer are weighted.

Such risk would only lead to funding a formal support where the risk ‘cannot be

mitigated through informal or lower cost supports’.178

This sets a very high bar and may result in supports being unreasonably denied. A

similarly high bar is proposed by the Bill directing that informal supports are prioritised

over funding formal supports, except where formal supports are ‘necessary’.179

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 24

The Bill is amended to include in proposed subsections 34(1A)-(1C) and

34(1G)-(1H), in Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill all the factors currently included

in the Supports for Participants Rules.

16 Provider registration

16.1 Background

Schedule 2 of the Bill contains amendments to improve the integrity of the Scheme,

including a new definition of “NDIS provider”. This follows the Department’s consultation

on a proposed new definition of “NDIS provider”, as a necessary step to implement

mandatory registration of providers180.

This followed both the NDIS Review and the Taskforce making detailed recommendations

on provider registration. In addition to the amendments in the Bill, NDIS rules

will allow for the clarification of the definition of NDIS provider. Work on those NDIS rules has commenced and will take into account responses to the Getting It Right: A New Definition for NDIS Providers consultation that was open to the public from 19 December 2025 to 28 February 2026.181

The Bill introduces a new definition of “NDIS provider”,182 that allows for a person or entity

who is not an NDIS provider to be included in a class of persons or entities prescribed in

category D NDIS rules.183

Page 65 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

There is nothing in the Bill or the Explanatory Memorandum that makes clear the

government’s position in relation to self-directed supports. We note that the

Supplementary Impact Analysis prepared by the Department annexed to the Explanatory

Memorandum considers self-directed supports in Option 1184, but not within the context of

Option 2 (the preferred option).

Any provider registration requirements must properly account for self-directed supports,

and must implement in full the recommendations of the Taskforce, which differs to the

recommendations of the NDIs Review.

16.2 The NDIS Review

The NDIS Review recommended:

1. a “risk-proportionate model for the visibility and regulation of all providers and

workers” in the Scheme185

J. a proposed model to regulate providers based around four broad categories of

registration related to the risk associated with different types of supports and

providers, with corresponding mandatory registration or enrolment

requirements, namely:

(a) advanced registration for all high-risk supports.

(b) general registration for all medium risk supports

(c) basic registration for all lower risk supports, and

(d) enrolment of all providers of lowest risk supports186

K. whilst recognising the NDIS was designed to offer choice and control to people with disability through a market-based system of supports187, the model should

include mandatory registration or enrolment of all providers, including

Navigators, Lead Practitioners and foundational support providers, and all other

new supports and functions proposed in other recommendations188.

16.3 The Taskforce

The Taskforce was tasked to give expert advice to the government on designing and

setting up this new model to make sure it upholds the rights of people with disability to

have choice and control.189

Page 66 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

The Taskforce advice notes significant concerns with mandatory registration for all NDIS

providers and considered that this would:

(a) significantly impact on choice and control for NDIS participants without further

design incorporating the current ways supports are managed

(b) be costly or burdensome to providers, particularly smaller providers, causing

some to leave the NDIS market, which will reduce the number of providers in

the NDIS and cause further barriers to accessing quality supports within the

Scheme that are right for people with disability

(c) limit or stifle innovation and different models of supports NDIS participants and

their families are exploring and using effectively.190

The Taskforce made 11 recommendations, including that:

Not all providers should be registered. Further consultation with the disability community and sector is needed on this. It is recommended that those who would not be registered would include, but are not limited to:

 unregistered providers who support participants who are self-directed  goods bought off-the-shelf from mainstream providers.191 (our emphasis)

The Taskforce also recommended:

1. platform providers are registered192,

L. ways to support NDIS participants to register themselves for self-directed

supports, including:

(a) having support providers automatically registered and visible to the

Commission.

(b) putting self-directed supports in a new category, which are reviewed and

audited to make sure people are safe and have quality supports

(c) people with disability co-designing the registration and audit processes193

M. a worker registration scheme for all workers, with the disability community and

sector co-designing the definition of ‘worker’194

N. the registration model must recognise any existing professional registrations

that are held by providers, including allied health professionals195 (noting that

Page 67 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

within the legislative framework, there needs to be consideration of the

recognition of other professional registration for allied health practitioners196,

and

O. four types of registration, namely:

(a) Advanced registration - providers who offer high-risk supports and services in

high-risk settings, including daily living supports in closed settings like group

homes.

(b) General registration - providers who offer medium-risk supports like: high

intensity daily personal activities, supports that need extra skills and training,

and supports where there is a lot of one-on-one contact with people with

disability

(c) Self-directed support registration - participants, their guardian or legal

representative who contract all their supports directly, and

(d) Basic Registration - providers who offer lower-risk supports, such as sole

traders or supports where social and community participation involves limited

one-on-one contact with people with disability.197

The Taskforce identified a fifth category (goods or services from mainstream suppliers) for

which registration is not required.

Whilst the Taskforce thought that the framework provided by the NDIS Review provides a

useful framework for understanding risk, and it adopted three of the four categories of

registration proposed198, the Taskforce’s recommendations differ from the NDIS Review in

the following ways:

(a) recognising the paramountcy of choice and control

(b) accepting that not all providers need to be, nor should be, registered

(c) including a self-directed support registration category

(d) not adopting the concept of “enrolment” for lowest risk supports,

(e) not categorising any risks as “lowest”,

(f) specifically including platform providers, and

(g) insisting the new definition of “NDIS provider” is co-designed by people with

disability.

Page 68 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

securing the input from people with disability and their representative organisations on the

co-design of the registration and audit processes.

The regulatory model must be designed and considered holistically, and not in the

piecemeal, fragmented way that the Department appears to have adopted under the

Provider definition consultation paper. Any proposal for increased mandatory provider

registration must also include the Taskforce’s recommendations in relation to self-directed

supports providers, a workforce registration system, and the definition of “worker”.202 We

also note that the need to take an holistic approach is consistent with the government’s

approach (as published by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) to achieving

the government’s vision and goals for the care and support economy, in which an “holistic,

harmonised approach to the implementation of these reforms is vital”.203

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 25

(a) The government accept the Taskforce’s advice that not all providers must be registered and co-design amendments to the Act with people with disability and their representative organisations amendments that define:  “NDIS provider”, and

 “registered NDIS provider”.

(b) That the government accept the Taskforce’s advice to include:

 a category of registration for participants who self-direct their supports and provide for processes for registration and audit, and

 a Worker Registration Scheme for all “workers”.

(c) That the government co-designs with people with disability and their representative organisations amendments to the Act that define:

 “self-directed support registration”, and  “worker”,

and co-design the associated registration and audit processes for self directed support registration.

Page 70 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

17 Automated decision making

The Bill specifically authorises the NDIA to use automated decision-making for decisions

about payment or rejection of claims, and approving old framework plans.204 The

Explanatory Memorandum says the NDIA intends to only use ADM for paying or rejecting

claims where there is an objective reason to do so (such as that the claim would require

money that is not available under a person’s plan), or for grouping together certain

supports in a person’s plan.205.

The Bill also allows the Minister to expand the use of ADM by issuing future legislative

instruments, which may authorise ADM for a wider range of purposes.206 The Explanatory

Memorandum foreshadows the use of ADM in the context of new framework planning, and

for making other NDIS functions more efficient.207

Currently there is no whole-of-government framework outlining safeguards for the use of

ADM by government agencies. The Bill does contain some precautionary measures,

including:

(a) allowing the NDIA to override an ADM decision that is incorrect

(b) requiring the NDIA, where ADM is used to make decisions involving ‘evaluative

judgements’, to produce a ‘standard operating procedure instrument’ describing

how the computer is programmed to make these judgements208

(c) requiring the NDIA to publish those standard operating procedures on its

website and outline in its Annual Report what types of ADM were used over the

past year209, and

(d) requiring the NDIA to tell people if certain (but not all) decisions affecting them

were made by ADM.210

The provisions authorising automated decision-making are not linked to either returning

the Scheme to its original intent, nor ensuring the integrity of the Scheme.

On 26 May 2026, during the second reading speech debates on the Bill in the House of

Representatives, the independent Member for Curtin, Ms Kate Chaney MP moved an

amendment to the motion before the House in the following terms:

whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

Page 71 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

18 Civil penalties and regulatory powers

The government asserts that the NDIA does not have the necessary powers to regulate

and monitor the payment of over $50 billion per year.213 The Bill proposes to give the

NDIA new powers to investigate and enforce compliance, with powers to investigate and

monitor participants and providers. Enforcement actions (including issuing infringement

notices or seeking enforceable undertakings) apply only to providers.

These new regulatory powers sit alongside those of the NDIS Commission. Presently, the

NDIS Commission can only regulate ‘registered providers’. Given this current limitation, it

is not clear why the regulatory powers proposed to be given to the NDIA are not given to

the NDIS Commission instead. It is already set up to regulate in the context of the NDIS.

This will also remove the potential confusion over jurisdiction or power, and maintain the

appropriate separation between government service delivery (through the Agency) and

regulatory, compliance and regulatory action (through the NDIS Commission).

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 27

The Bill is amended to give to the NDIS Commission the regulatory powers

and civil remedy powers instead of the NDIA.

Page 73 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

Endnotes

1 Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00081/asmade/text.

2 Department of Social Services, Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031, 2024 update: Building a more inclusive Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, 2024.

3 Retrieved from https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legisl ation%2Fbills%2Fr7487_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0, accessed 15 May 2026.

4 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008), retrieved from https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons- with-disabilities-crpd, accessed 7 January 2026.

5 Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, “NDIS rules: public consultation on new framework planning Discussion paper ”, Commonwealth of Australia, January 2026, retrieved from https://consultations.health.gov.au/ndis/nfp-public- consultation/user_uploads/public-consultation-on-nfp—discussion-paper-1.pdf, accessed 29 January 2026.

6 Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Resul ts/Result?bId=r7487, accessed 15 May 2026.

7 Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2026A00041/asmade/text.

8 Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00020/latest/text.

9 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Working together to deliver the NDIS. Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Final Report, CommoSchedule 5, item 1nwealth of Australia, October 2023, retrieved from https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/working-together- ndis-review-final-report.pdf, last accessed 18 May 2026.

10 Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, “Getting It Right: A New Definition for NDIS Providers”, Commonwealth of Australia,19 December 2025, retrieved from https://consultations.health.gov.au/disability-and-carers-group/ndis-provider- definition-consultation/, accessed 7 January 2026.

11 Hon Mark Butler MP, Speech at the National Press Club, Canberra, 22 April 2026, p. 6, transcript retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler- mp/media/minister-butler-speech-at-the-national-press-club-22-april- 2026?language=en, accessed 22 April 2026.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

12 Commonwealth of Australia, Budget measures: Budget paper no. 2 2026–27, Canberra, 2026, p, 108.

13 retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Tabled_Documents/16585, on 28 May 2026.

14 Note 9, p.30.

15 Letter of transmission of the final report, from the co-chairs of the NDIS Review to the Disability Ministers, dated 27 October 2023, reproduced in the Final Report of the Review – see Note 9, p. ii.

16 Note 6, p.5.

17 Note 6, p. 234.

18 Note 6, p.235.

19 Note 6, p.236.

20 Note 19.

21 Hon Mark Butler MP, Speech at the National Press Club, Canberra, 22 April 2026, p. 6, transcript retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler- mp/media/minister-butler-speech-at-the-national-press-club-22-april- 2026?language=en, accessed 22 April 2026.

22 See, for example, note 6, p. 219, “the number of prospective participants affected is unknown”, and p. 235 “there is no data available to indicate the numbers of participants with funding for secondary impairments”.

23 - See, for example, note 6, p. 225, footnote 131.

24 See, for example, note 6, p. 219.

25 See, for example, note 6, p. 237.

26 Commonwealth of Australia. (26 May 2026,). Parliamentary debates (Hansard), House of Representatives, p. 56.

27 Note 6, p.4.

28 Note 9.

Page 75 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

29 Note 74.

30 Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, International disability rights, Commonwealth of Australia (February 2026), retrieved from https://genderequality.gov.au/, accessed 26 May 2026 https://www.health.gov.au/topics/disability-and-carers/empowering/international- disability-rights

31 UN Treaty Body Database, retrieved from https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CRPD accessed 10 February 2026.

32 Note 4, Article 4(3).

33 Note Error! Bookmark not defined., paragraph 15.

34 Note Error! Bookmark not defined., paragraph 22.

35 Note 34

36 Note Error! Bookmark not defined., paragraph 23.

37 Article 3(a), CRPD.

38 Article 5, CRPD.

39 Article 19, CRPD

40 Article 28, CRPD.

41 Office for Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality, Commonwealth of Australia (2024), retrieved from https://genderequality.gov.au/, accessed 26 May 2026.

42 Sophie Yates and others. Women’s experiences of accessing individualized disability supports: gender inequality and Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme, Int J Equity Health (2021) 20:243, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01571-7, retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12939-021-01571-7.pdf, accessed 26 May 2026.

43 Note 42, p.1.

44 Diana Piantedosi and others, The presence and absence of gender and intersectionality in the 2023 NDIS review: a content analysis, Int J Equity Health (2025) 24, 140 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02441-2 retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12939-025-02441-2 , accessed 26 May 2026.

Page 76 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

45 Note 6, p. 5.

46 Note 41.

47 Office for Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Gender Responsive Budgeting: Including gender analysis in budget proposals, Commonwealth of Australia (December 2025), retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/gender- responsive-budgeting, accessed 26 May 2026.

48 Mandated (unless otherwise agreed to by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet) by the Budget Process Operational Rules (effective 18 December 2023) pp. 1, 4, 6, and 11, retrieved from https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/budget-process-operational- rules_0.pdf, accessed 26 May 2026.

49 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Including Gender: An APS Guide to Gender Analysis and Gender Impact Assessment, Commonwealth of Australia (December 2025), Appendix A, p. 30, retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/including-gender- aps-guide-gender-analysis-and-gender-impact-assessment, accessed 26 May 2026.

50 Note 47.

51 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Including Gender: An APS Guide to Gender Analysis and Gender Impact Assessments, Commonwealth of Australia (December 2025), Appendix A, p. 29, retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/including-gender- guide_0.pdf, accessed 26 May 2026.

52 Note 51, p. 30.

53 Note 51, p. 30.

54 Note 51, p. 31.

55 Note 42, p.3.

56 Diana Piantedosi and others, There is overwhelming gender bias in the NDIS – and the review doesn’t address it, The Conversation, 30 January 2024, retrieved from https://theconversation.com/there-is-overwhelming-gender-bias-in-the-ndis-and-the- review-doesnt-address-it-220042, accessed 26 May 2026.

57 See, for example, note 6, pp. 227, 230, and 236.

58 Note 6, p. 239.

59 Note 56.

Page 77 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

60 Note 9, p. 23.

61 Note 21, p. 12.

62 Note 21, pp. 12-13.

63 Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Securing the NDIS for future generations, Commonwealth of Australia, April 2026, retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-04/securing-the-ndis-for-future- generations_0.pdf, accessed 22 April 2026.

64 Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Resul ts/Result?bId=r7181, accessed 29 May 2026.

65 Blomkamp, E. (2018), The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77: 729-743, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8500.12310, accessed 20 February 2026.

66 Note 65.

67 Design for Europe, quoted in Sunlight foundation, Guide to co-design, Learn how to create a participatory design process, retrieved from https://communities.sunlightfoundation.com/action/codesign/, accessed 20 February 2026.

68 Blomkamp, E. What is co-design? Understanding the process, principles and practice, retrieved from https://www.newknow.how/resources/define-co-design, accessed 20 February 2026.

69 Media Statement from Australia’s Disability Representative Organisations, Disability advocates call on Government to ensure critical supports remain while NDIS changes are made, 22 April 2026, p. 2.

70 Note 21, p. 10.

71 Note 70.

72 Note 6, p. 2.

73 Note 21, p.13.

74 Note 21, p. 4.

75 Note 21, p. 8.

Page 78 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

76 Every Australian Counts, Explainer: What were the original intentions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme?, retrieved from https://everyaustraliancounts.com.au/opinion/explainer-what-were-the-original- intentions-of-the-national-disability-insurance-scheme/, last accessed 9 October 2025.

77 Note 76.

78 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/9b96ae59-96ca-4e39- b984-8b520b432ef5/0005/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf, 18 May 2026.

79 Note 78, p. 13877.

80 Note 78, p. 13878.

81 Note 78, p. 13878.

82 Note 78, p. 13878.

83 Note 6, p.225.

84 Note 6, p.225.

85 Note 6, p.231.

86 See, for example, note 6, p. 219, “the number of prospective participants affected is unknown”, and p. 235 “there is no data available to indicate the numbers of participants with funding for secondary impairments”.

87 - See, for example, note 6, p. 225, footnote 131.

88 See, for example, note 6, p. 219.

89 See, for example, note 6, p. 237.

90 Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, AFDO urges pilots & evaluation before full rollout of new NDIS assessment tool announced by NDIS Minister, media release, 25 September 2025, retrieved from https://afdo.org.au/afdo-urges-pilots-evaluation-before- full-rollout-of-new-ndis-assessment-tool-announced-by-ndis-minister/ by NDIS Minister - AFDO, last accessed 15 October 2025.

91 Commonwealth, Community Affairs Legislation Committee Estimates, Senate, 10 October 2025, p. 9, retrieved from https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/29004/toc_pdf/Com munity%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2025_10_10.pdf, last accessed 16 October 2025.

Page 79 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

92 Note 91.

93 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stevie-lang-howson-1a8ab0289 ndis-disabilityrights-icanv6- activity-7381913043573694465- NGbo/?utm source=share&utm medium=member ios&rcm=ACoAAABBC84B09sIsA2JLuitAYq giqhiENguMWM, last accessed 16 October 2025.

94 Section 31, NDIS Act.

95 Item 66, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill. This item repeals Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the NDIS Act, which Division contains section 31.

96 Note 6, p. 12.

97 Subsection 20(1)(a), NDIS Act.

98 Section 21(1), NDIS Act.

99 Section 26(1), NDIS Act.

100 Subsections 24(1)(c) and 25(1)(c), NDIS Act.

101 Note 6, p. 12.

102 Item 4, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

103 Items 5 and 7, respectively, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

104 Note 6, p.14

105 Item 4, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

106 Note 6, p.14.

107 Section 24(1), NDIS Act.

108 Subsection 24(2), NDIS Act.

109 Subsection 24(3), NDIS Act.

110 Note 103.

111 Note 105.

Page 80 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

112 Note 21, p 10.

113 Note 6, p. 14.

114 Item 11, part 1, Schedule 1, of the Bill, in combination with sections 30-30A , NDIS Act.

115 Note 9, p.91.

116 Note 9, p.91.

117 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Care and support economy – state of play, 28 May 2024, retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/care-and-support- economy-state-play, accessed 24 February 2026.,

118 Part 8, Schedule 1, of the Bill.

119 Note 6, p. 3.

120 Note 9, p.96.

121 [2022] FCA 1002.

122 Items 89 and 91, Part 8, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

123 Item 92, Part 8, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

124 Proposed subsection 25A(3), item 92, Part 8, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

125 Item 89, Part 8, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

126 NDIA v Sutherland [2026] FCA 3 (Sutherland).

127 Part 9, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

128 Proposed subsections 25B(2) and (3), item 97, Part 9, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

129 Proposed subsection 25B(6), item 97, Part 9, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

130 Note 6, p. 66.

131 Brickhill and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 707.

132 Proposed subsection 25B(4), item 97, Part 9, Schedule 1 of the Bill

Page 81 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

133 Section 48, NDIS Act,

134 Proposed section 48A, item 21, Part 2, Schedule1 of the Bill.

135 Note 6, p. 22.

136 Note 6, p. 22.

137 Item 19, Part 2, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

138 Item 18, Part 2, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

139 Item 19, Part 2, Schedule 1 of the Bill

140 Item 13, Part 2, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

141 Part 5, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

142 Note 6, p. 35.

143 Part 7, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

144 Note 6, p. 58.

145 Item 79, Part 7, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

146 Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

147 Item 65, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

148 Item 31, Part 3, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

149 Section 34(1)(aa), NDIS Act.

150 CEO of the NDIA v Eastham [2026] FCA 147 (Eastham).

151 Note 6, p. 24.

152 Note 6, p. 206.

153 Explanatory Memorandum pp. 27-28, retrieved from https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legisl ation%2Fems%2Fr7181 ems f83281ef-0f46-4fbb-a59f-2e19439dcacb%22, accessed 29 May 2026.

Page 82 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

154 MS Australia (2025) Living well with MS: Your guide to adapting your lifestyle. Retrieved from https://www.msaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/mlf-pwms master.pdf, accessed 28 May 2026.

155 Item 34, Part 4, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

156 Note 11, pp9-10.

157 Note 13.

158 Note 6, p.24.

159 [2017] FCA 308.

160 Proposed section 34A(3).

161 Note 6, p. 32.

162 Section 121(1), NDIS Act.

163 Section 121(2)(b)(i), NDIS Act.

164 Section 121(2)(a), NDIS Act.

165 Section 121(3), NDIS Act.

166 Section 42, Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)

167 Part 4 of Chapter 3, Legislation Act.

168 See regulation 9 (Item 2 of the table) (Instruments not subject to disallowance) and regulation 11 (Item 3 of the table) (Instruments not subject to sunsetting), Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 (Cth).

169 Item 68, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

170 Note 6, pp. 46-47.

171 Note 6, p. 50.

172 Item 73, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

173 Note 6, p.46.

Page 83 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

174 See NDIS (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) s 3.1(b).

175 Proposed subsections 34(1E)-(1F), Item 73, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

176 Proposed subsections 34(1G)-(1H), Item 73, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

177 NDIS (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) ss 3.4(a)(ii) and (iv).

178 Proposed subsection 34(1K)(a)), Item 73, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

179 Proposed subsection 34(1K)(b)), Item 73, Part 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill.

180 Note 10.

181 Note 6, p. 72.

182 Item 3 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Bill.

183 Proposed section 10C(2), item 3 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Bill.

184 Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Mandatory Registration of all National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Providers, annexed to the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, p. 5.

185 Note 9.

186 Note 185, pp. 178-179.

187 Note 185, p. 49.

188 Note 185, p. 186.

189 NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Advice, Commonwealth of Australia, 2025, p.11, retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/ndis-provider-and-worker- registration-taskforce-advice.pdf, accessed 3 February 2026.

190 Note 189, p. 13.

191 Note 189, recommendation 1, p. 5.

192 Note 189, recommendation 4, p. 5.

193 Note 189, recommendation 6, p. 6.

Page 84 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 446

194 Note 189, recommendation 10, p. 8.

195 Note 189, recommendation 11.

196 Note 189, p. 9.

197 Note 189, recommendation 3, p.5 and Table 1 (Annexure A), p. 109.

198 Note 196.

199 Note 189, p. 23.

200 Note 10, p. 6.

201 Note 10, p.2

202 Note 194.

203 Note 117.

204 Part 2, Schedule 3 of the Bill.

205 Note 6, p. 132 and p. 134.

206 Note 204, item 11, proposed subsection 59C(2).

207 Note 6, p. 133.

208 Note 204, item 11, proposed subsection 59D.

209 Note 204, item 11, proposed subsections 59E(6) and (7).

210 Note 204, item 11, proposed subsection 59E(4).

211 Commonwealth of Australia. (26 May 2026). Parliamentary debates (Hansard), House of Representatives, p. 57.

212 Commonwealth of Australia. (28 May 2026). Parliamentary debates (Hansard), House of Representatives, p. 3.

213 Note 6, p. 2.

Page 85 of 85 Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill – Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee