Submission 48
Submission regarding the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am a parent of two adult age disabled children. The views provided within this submission are based on lived experience supporting my children, working with providers and my work experience in business analysis and management. Whilst I agree there is a need for NDIS reforms, any change implementation must not be rushed and well planned through broad consultation with all stakeholders. Changes should be structured, created through timely and broad consultation, and ensure it maintains the dignity and respect of people with disability.
It is evident that government is more focussed on reducing financial expenditure and growth than protecting the intended recipients i.e. people with disability. As a result, NDIS is directing their efforts towards the “easy target” namely people with disability which presents a clear as NDIS was created to support and help people with disability to enhance their capacity and standard of living. This action is resulting in deaths, increased anxiety and stress on participants and the national health systems. The number of external NDIS appeals, through ART and the Federal courts, have significantly increased resulting in increased stress, increased NDIS legal costs, increased pressure on ART, the health system, limited advocacy and legal aid resources.
It is interesting that NDIS is unfairly targeting participants, the easy option, and in the process hurting their clients. Participants have been made the scapegoats they are being punished, disrespected and harmed when they undoubtably present a low source of threat to integrity or fraud financial concerns. Reducing the significant levels of financial leaking would be through increasing focus on large scale fraud perpetrated by organised crime, internal employees and dishonest providers. It is noted and very concerning that during government financial spending reviews NDIS and the Commission has failed to deliver a breakdown of the identified fraud value attributable to source and cause of detected frauds. This is totally negligent and unfair as this detail should be collected and reported to maintain NDIA accountability to government. NDIS business reporting should be immediately changed to provide this much greater level of accountability this requirement rather than reporting on less important NDIA KPIs’
It is concerning that prior to sign off for this bill and new legislation NDIS are already significantly reducing the amount of funding allocated to participants plans to affect, government directed, reduction of NDIS expenditure and growth. Whilst the need for NDIS reform is acknowledged it is concerning that reduced funding is often endangering the safety and welfare and disrespecting the rights of people with disability.
Examples of plan reductions that have negatively impacted people:
Person with a significant disability requiring 24 hour 1:1 or 1:2 supports is approved for SDA accommodation and given reduced and inadequate 1:3 or 1:4 support hours as a result the plan does not have sufficient funds and the person is forced to return to the family home for public holidays and weekends. This causes increased anxiety and disruption to the participant and exposes the aging single parent to anger and threats. During NDIS plan reviews some participants, previously approved for SIL, are having their SIL support hours slashed and changed to lower 1:3 or 1:4 rate rather than 1:1 or 1:2. This forces some participant to change their preferred accommodation or having to share their accommodation arrangements between their SIL and the family home. This situation is very
Submission 48
disruptive and causes increased anxiety to participants and their family. When participants raise these concerns NDIS planners advise they should change their accommodation which is not an appropriate or valid solution. Some participants who have a preference or choose to live in solo accommodation, due to the impact of their disabilities, which is their personal right, are told to find suitable group accommodation. This is inequitable and can cause safety and welfare issues to participants, other occupants of the accommodation and families. During NDIS plan reviews participants have received significant reduction or refusal for ongoing therapy services recommended in occupational therapist functional capacity assessments and other supporting therapist reports. Participants are being allocated five year plans but only being allocated the funding equivalent to two to three years of previously funded supports. This is inequitable as the rate of ongoing cost increases including annual CPI means participants are being forced to significantly reduce or cease therapies to assist with improving their functional capacity. This results in deterioration of participants therapy progress and outcomes. Participants are being rejected for allied health supports, such as speech pathology support, with planners siting duplication of supports, as the participants are already accessing other therapies such as occupational therapy. This is not appropriate as the two roles, whilst complimentary and work towards achieving identified goals, carry out vastly different therapies using differing methodologies to achieve goals. NDIS are also refusing support services, such as psychology and podiatry, inappropriately advising people they should access these therapies using chronic health care plans. It is noted below this advice is incorrect.
Government has announced that social and community funding is being cut across the board with allocations being rolled back to 2023 levels. This is not equitable considering the increased cost of living and the therapeutic needs of people with disability who have identified as requiring social and community engagement to address impacts on their functional capacity by practising communication skills to reduce anxiety and manage participants sensory overload. It is also noted that social and community support hours are used for support workers to take participants to medical and therapy appointments to reduce the expenditure of travel costs, NDIS allows providers to invoice travel costs however NDIS does not provision these costs into participant plans.
It is concerning that government is focussed on rushing legislation changes and implementation of NDIS program reforms. Rushing change, to significantly curtail financial growth, without considering the rights and dignity of people with disabilities is totally inappropriate.
The proposal to automate the support needs assessment process and use algorithms to generically allocate funds does not present respect to people with disabilities and threatens potential negative outcomes like Robo-Debt. It is important to note that the impact, of disabilities, on each person is not the same. People with disabilities are all individuals who experience differing impacts on their functional capacity i.e. no two people with the same this should be accepted and respected with people not being generically categorised and bundled into the same bucket. It is also concerning that whilst the minister is claiming this automation is to be used to reduce the amount of NDIS input carrying out minor low level administration tasks however if legislated this could result in automation of other tasks such
Submission 48
as creating standardised plans and allocating funding which increases potential for repeat of negative outcomes or failures like Robo-Debt.
The reform of NDIS, if not carefully planned through broad consultation with all stakeholders, has the danger of reducing people with disability to a number which is blatantly dehumanising.
Additional Concerns regarding proposed legislation changes are outlined as follows:
34A Determination reducing funding for groups of support
(1) For the purposes of ensuring the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine: (a) a percentage (lower than 100%) that is the percentage by which a funding component amount for a specified group of supports is reduced while the determination is in force; and (b) the old framework plans to which the determination applies (which must be plans that come into effect on or after the day the determination commences).
(5) To avoid doubt, the determination has effect even if the result is either or both of the following:
(a) the funding provided under a participant’s plan for a reasonable and necessary support is less than the total cost of the support;
(b) the funding provided under a participant’s plan for all reasonable and necessary supports funded under the plan taken as a whole is less than the total costs of the supports.
This provision has broad negative implications on all participants. The Minister is seeking the right to reduce supports solely on the basis of financial considerations and with blatant disregard to the impact to participants. As a large percentage of people with disabilities have very limited income, other than the disability support pension, they will be forced into hardship and likely have to either reduce or stop supports if this provision is invoked. Imposing any rate reductions will result in enforced reduction of support funding allocated to participants to enhance their functional capacity. This outcome is considered negative and detrimental to the goal and purpose of the NDIS.
Further the situation of the increased cost of supports has been compounded by regular NDIS rate increases, including travel allowances, to allied health and support services. The regular increases of NDIS rates, excepting support coordination and plan managers, has served to significantly increase the overall market cost of support services for all participants. It is noted that prior to NDIS commencement the prices for many of these services were well below NDIS set rates.
Submission 48
After paragraph 34(1)(f) 29 Insert:
(g) the support is not one that would be more appropriately provided or funded by:
(i) another scheme; or
(ii) one or more existing government service systems.
This provision creates a contradiction that results in a black hole where NDIS and other services do not adequately support people with disabilities. Currently NDIS are regularly rejecting or not approving therapies to participants on the basis of services being the responsibility of other agencies or a duplication of services e.g. advising participants to access chronic health funded supports such as psychology however chronic health referrals are limited to a low number of individual referrals annually, are restricted or not generally available for disability related matters, are subject to long waiting times and usually incur out of pocket co-payments.
After section 20 Insert:
25A Meaning of appropriate treatment etc.
Meaning of appropriate treatment
(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 24(5)(a) and 25(1B)(a), appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments is treatment that is:
a. evidence-based; and b. can reliably be expected to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact of, the impairment or impairments; and
c. is regularly undertaken or performed in Australia. (2) Treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.
Note: A person’s individual circumstances include the person’s financial circumstances and geographical location.
Person may be taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment
(3) For the purposes of paragraphs 24(5)(a) and 25(1B)(a), a person is taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments:
a. if the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for the impairment or impairments except appropriate medical treatment the person cannot undertake for medical reasons; or
b. in the circumstances determined under subsection (4). (4) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may determine circumstances for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b). (5) Without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 15 1901, or subsection 209(1A) of this Act, National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of subsection (4) of 17 this section may make different provision in relation to:
a. different classes of participants; and b. different impairments or classes of impairments.
Submission 48
The current process for accepting a disability for NDIS access is variable especially for less common disabilities like HEDS, HSD, FND, POTS although these disabilities have been shown to regularly co-exist or affect people diagnosed with ASD. The level of evidence required by the agency to approve access is not clearly defined.
This results in participants or their family and supports having to guess what treatments are considered, jump through invisible hoops, as adequate department advise or written guidelines and often do not provide appropriate feedback on unsuccessful applications. Participants are then forced to submit numerous applications and submit internal and external appeals in an endeavour to gain NDIS approval of the disability. This incurs considerable cost and time delays to NDIS, participants, and external reviewers including the ART and Federal Courts.
Delays and rejection of these additional primary disabilities also negatively impact on participants as NDIS do not give recognition to the combined impact of all disabilities on the functional capacity of participants e.g. a person granted NDIS access for ASD and later diagnosed with permanent life-long Hypermobility and needs to use a wheelchair, receive physiotherapy and other allied health supports. The additional physical disability and its impact on the personal functional capacity will not be recognised unless the disability accepted for NDIS access.
This means the persons functional capacity can rapidly deteriorate due to non-acceptance of the additional disability. This is considered an inappropriate situation particularly where medical practitioners and specialists often provide significant evidence to support the diagnosis and treatment undertaken to reduce the impact of lifelong and permanent disabilities. Rather than discounting or contradicting professional medical opinions NDIS should be enhancing relations with medical and allied health professionals to enhance the quality and detail required to deliver the supporting information required for NDIS to approve additional permanent disabilities.