Submission 46
Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the
NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Schedule 1 – Access and Planning Measures
I write to raise serious concerns regarding the practical and human impacts of Schedule 1 of the proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). While the stated aim is sustainability and consistency, the proposed changes risk excluding vulnerable participants, reducing necessary supports, and increasing harm—particularly for individuals with complex needs, psychosocial disability, and children.
PART 1 – DEFINING FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY
The introduction of a standardised, “objective” assessment of functional capacity may appear reasonable; however, in practice it risks:
-
Oversimplifying complex and fluctuating disabilities (particularly psychosocial disability, autism, trauma-related conditions).
-
Ignoring contextual factors such as environmental stressors, family capacity, and cumulative disadvantages.
-
Disadvantaging individuals who cannot consistently demonstrate impairment in clinical settings.
Impact:
People with episodic or invisible disabilities may be excluded despite significant real-world impairment. Children and individuals who mask symptoms may be assessed as having higher capacity than they actually function day-to-day.
PART 2 – LIMITING UNSCHEDULED PLAN REASSESSMENTS
Restricting reassessments to only “significant and ongoing” changes creates risk where:
-
Needs escalate rapidly (e.g. school breakdown, family crisis, mental health deterioration).
-
Children are forced out of the education system due to schools being unable to accommodate disability-related needs.
Submission 46
There is a growing cohort of “invisible children”—children with disabilities who are effectively pushed out of mainstream and specialist education due to lack of funding, staffing, or appropriate support. These children are often forced into homeschooling, not by choice, but because the education system cannot safely or adequately include them.
Impact:
Participants may be left without adequate supports during critical periods, increasing risk of:
- Family breakdown
- Social isolation
- Educational disengagement For homeschooled children with disabilities, needs can change rapidly and unpredictably. Limiting reassessments prevents timely access to support required to stabilise the child and family.
PART 3 – LINK BETWEEN IMPAIRMENT AND SUPPORT
Requiring a direct causal link between impairment and supports fails to reflect real life, where:
- Needs arise from the interaction between disability and the environment.
- System failures (such as inability of schools to accommodate children with disability) directly increase support needs.
Children who are unable to attend school due to disability-related exclusion require significantly higher levels of:
- Community access
- Social participation
- Recreational and developmental supports These supports are not optional—they are essential to replace the social, educational, and developmental opportunities that school would otherwise provide.
Impact:
Submission 46
Supports that maintain stability (e.g. community participation, skill-building, supervised activities) may be defunded on the basis they are not “directly” linked to impairment, despite being critical for:
- Preventing isolation
- Supporting development
- Maintaining mental health This disproportionately impacts homeschooled children with disability, who require more, not less, support to achieve comparable outcomes.
PART 4 – MINISTERIAL POWER TO REDUCE SUPPORT FUNDING
Allowing broad Ministerial determinations to reduce funding for categories of supports raises serious concerns:
- Lack of individualised decision-making
- Risk of arbitrary funding cuts
- Reduced transparency and accountability Impact:
Participants who rely on community, social, and recreational support—particularly children excluded from school—may lose access to essential supports that substitute for education-based participation.
PART 5 – PLAN RENEWAL AND REMOVAL OF FUND CARRYOVER
Preventing the carryover of unspent funds will disproportionately affect:
- Participants with fluctuating needs
- Families managing crises or school breakdown
- Homeschooled children requiring flexible use of supports depending on capacity and access
Impact:
Participants may:
- Lose essential funding due to factors beyond their control
Submission 46
- Be unable to access supports when they are needed
- Experience further instability in already fragile circumstances
PART 6 – REASONABLE AND NECESSARY (INCLUDING SUSTAINABILITY)
Including “scheme sustainability” and “equity” as decision factors risks:
- Prioritising budget constraints over individual need
- Ignoring unequal starting points, particularly for children excluded from education Impact:
Children who cannot attend school may receive reduced support in the name of “equity,” despite having significantly higher unmet needs compared to peers who can access education.
PART 7 – PLAN SUSPENSIONS
Allowing plan suspension and eventual revocation after failed contact attempts is deeply concerning for:
- Individuals with psychosocial disability
- Families experiencing crisis, burnout, or breakdown due to caring responsibilities Impact:
Families already overwhelmed—particularly those managing full-time care and homeschooling due to lack of school access—may lose support entirely due to inability to engage administratively.
PART 8 – TIGHTENING PERMANENCE CRITERIA
Requiring all treatment options to be exhausted before access is granted is problematic because:
-
Many children experience ongoing functional impairment despite multiple interventions
-
School exclusion itself is evidence of significant functional impact Impact:
Submission 46
Children may be denied access despite clear, real-world evidence of disability (e.g. inability to attend school safely), simply because theoretical treatment options remain.
PART 9 – ELIGIBILITY BASED ON OTHER SYSTEMS
Requiring individuals to rely on other systems (e.g. education) ignores:
-
The documented failure of education systems to adequately support many children with disability
-
The reality that some children are excluded, suspended, or unable to attend due to safety concerns
Impact:
Children forced into homeschooling due to school failure may be deemed ineligible for NDIS supports on the assumption the education system should provide them—when in reality, it does not.
OVERALL IMPACT
Collectively, these changes:
- Shift the NDIS from a participant-centred scheme to a cost-control model
- Increase barriers to access
- Reduce flexibility and responsiveness They also fail to recognise a critical and growing issue:
Children with disabilities who are effectively excluded from education are becoming invisible within policy frameworks.
These children:
-
Are not adequately supported by the education system
-
Require increased NDIS supports to access community, social, and developmental opportunities
-
Are at high risk of long-term disadvantage, isolation, and mental health deterioration
Submission 46
For these children, NDIS support is not supplementary—they are essential to replace what the education system cannot provide.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS – MISUSE, EQUITY AND TARGETING OF
SUPPORTS
While much of this Bill focuses on restricting access and reducing support, there are critical areas where existing inefficiencies, misuse, and poor targeting of funding are not being appropriately addressed.
- Lack of Effective Oversight and Cross-Agency Verification There should be stronger, transparent mechanisms for verifying informal supports and living arrangements through appropriate data-sharing across government systems, including:
-
Services Australia (Centrelink)
-
Medicare
-
Service NSW (confirmation address and driver’s license)
-
Homes NSW This could include appropriate checks of:
-
Living arrangements
-
Rental leases or property ownership
-
Utility connections Impact:
Without appropriate oversight, funding may not be directed to those with the highest needs, while those experiencing genuine isolation and crisis remain under-supported.
- Funding of Non-Evidence-Based and Low-Value Supports There is growing concern regarding funding being allocated to supports and therapies that lack a strong evidence base or measurable outcomes, including:
- Music and art-based therapies without demonstrated functional outcomes
- High cost “programs” marketed to NDIS participants without clinical justification
Submission 46
- Expensive school holiday programs delivered by allied health providers at inflated rates
In many cases, activities such as:
- Bike riding
- Fishing
- Surfing
- General recreational outings are being delivered at significantly higher costs under therapeutic labels, despite being activities that could be facilitated at far lower cost by a support worker where appropriate.
Impact:
This represents poor value for money and diverts funding away from participants with high and complex needs.
- Misclassification of Everyday and Parental Responsibilities There is increasing concern that NDIS funding is being used for supports that fall within ordinary parental or household responsibilities, including:
- Cleaning and lawn maintenance in child plans
- School drop-offs and pick-ups
- Babysitting under the guise of support work
- Swimming lessons framed as therapy without clear clinical need Additionally, some supports such as hydrotherapy, or physiotherapy may be used inappropriately to fund general swimming activities rather than targeted therapeutic intervention.
Impact:
This undermines the integrity of the Scheme and reduces available resources for participants who require intensive, disability-specific support.
- Short-Term Accommodation (Respite) and Support Allocation Short-term accommodation and respite supports should be:
Submission 46
-
Reserved for participants and families experiencing significant vulnerability, crisis, or breakdown
-
Clearly linked to disability-related needs There is concern that these supports are being used by individuals who:
-
Can attend school
-
Used as a babysitting service
-
Have lower support needs don’t require 24/7 care
-
Other family members also Ndis participants
-
Do not meet the threshold of vulnerability intended for such supports Similarly, funding is being used for:
-
Camps
-
Recreational group programs
-
Travel-style experiences, or tourism with activities included staying in different locations far away from home. Include km’s radius
without clear evidence of necessity or outcomes.
Impact:
This reduces availability for families in crisis, including those caring for children with complex needs who are isolated at home and unable to access education.
- Targeting Supports to Those Most in Need NDIS funding must be prioritised for:
-
Children and adults who are socially isolated
-
Individuals unable to attend school or participate in the community
-
Participants with high and complex support needs Children who are:
-
Able to attend school
-
Able to engage socially with minimal support
-
Able to attend church and events
-
Able to attend sleepovers without carer
Submission 46
should not be receiving the same level or type of funded supports as those who are:
- Excluded from education
- Confined to the home due to disability
- Experiencing significant functional impairment Impact:
Failure to appropriately target supports risks widening inequality within the Scheme and leaving the most vulnerable without adequate assistance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
-
Ensure functional capacity assessments include environmental context, including school access or exclusion.
-
Allow flexible and urgent plan reassessments where children are withdrawn or excluded from school.
-
Recognise homeschooling due to disability as a key indicator of increased support needs.
-
Protect funding for community, social, and recreational support for children unable to attend school.
-
Ensure “reasonable and necessary” decisions reflect actual lived circumstances, not theoretical service availability.
-
Prevent exclusion based on assumed access to education systems where access has demonstrably failed.
-
Introduce appropriate cross-agency verification processes to ensure accurate reporting of informal support and living arrangements.
-
Strengthen evidence requirements for funded therapies and programs, with clear outcome measures.
-
Clearly define and enforce boundaries between NDIS supports and parental or everyday living responsibilities.
-
Tighten eligibility and oversight of short-term accommodation and high-cost recreational programs.
-
Ensure funding prioritisation frameworks direct resources to participants with the highest level of functional impairment and social isolation.
Submission 46
CONCLUSION
While sustainability is important, it must not come at the cost of excluding those most in need. The proposed changes risk deepening systemic failures—particularly for children who are already falling through the gaps between disability and education systems.
The NDIS must remain grounded in its core purpose: supporting people with disability to live safe, functional, and dignified lives.
Ensuring the sustainability of the NDIS requires not only restricting access, but also addressing inefficiencies, misuse, and poor allocation of resources within the Scheme.
Without this balance, reforms risk unfairly targeting those with genuine need—particularly families managing complex disability, isolation, and exclusion from essential systems such as education—while failing to address areas where funding is not being used effectively.