Impact of NDIS reforms on child with disabilities (Participant experience)

Submission 52

Submissions on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Prepared by: Niti Prakash

Disability Advocate | Lawyer | Parent of a Child with Disability

Disability Solutions & Outcomes

Introduction

I make these submissions in multiple capacities:

• as a disability advocate working directly with participants, families and providers across Australia;

• as a lawyer with experience in disability law, administrative law, risk management and Tribunal advocacy;

• and as the parent of a child with significant disabilities who relies on the NDIS in everyday life.

These submissions are not made from a purely theoretical or policy perspective.

The proposed reforms will have real and practical impacts on participants, families, providers, carers and advocates navigating the Scheme daily.

While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and addressing fraud and misuse of public funds, I am deeply concerned that many provisions within the Bill collectively represent a substantial shift away from the original rights-based and individualised framework of the Scheme.

In particular, I am concerned that the proposed reforms:

• significantly increase executive discretion;
• reduce certainty for participants;
• narrow access to supports;
• reduce practical procedural fairness;
• diminish independent oversight;
• and increasingly frame participant supports through the lens of macroeconomic sustainability rather than individual need.

Many of the proposed amendments also appear to respond directly to recent Tribunal and Federal Court decisions which interpreted provisions of the NDIS Act more broadly in favour of participants.

Submission 52

While Parliament is entitled to legislate, there is legitimate concern where legislative reform appears directed toward overcoming binding judicial interpretations rather than engaging transparently with the underlying policy and operational issues identified through litigation.

1. Increasing Executive Discretion and Legislative

Uncertainty

One of the most significant concerns throughout the Bill is the increasing reliance on broad discretionary powers, future Rules, Ministerial determinations and undefined concepts.

The Bill leaves many key participant rights and eligibility concepts to future legislative instruments rather than primary legislation.

This includes concepts such as:

• “financial sustainability”;

• “appropriate treatment”;

• “alternative supports”;

• “comparable supports”;

• “value for money”;

• “directly arising from impairments”;

• “reasonable attempts to contact”; and

• “equitable distribution of funding”. This creates substantial uncertainty for:

• participants;

• families;

• providers;

• advocates;

• and decision-makers themselves. The NDIS already involves significant complexity. The introduction of broad discretionary concepts without clear statutory guidance risks inconsistent decision-making and further litigation.

Many key operational details are proposed to be dealt with later through Rules or Ministerial instruments, reducing Parliamentary scrutiny and increasing the ability for future governments to significantly alter participant rights without primary legislative amendment.

This is particularly concerning given:

Submission 52

• the scale of the Scheme;

• the vulnerability of many participants;

• and the life-altering impact of funding decisions. The practical effect is that participants may increasingly struggle to predict:

• what supports they are entitled to;

• how eligibility will be assessed;

• what evidence is required;

• and whether funding decisions are genuinely based on individual circumstances.

2. Financial Sustainability Becoming a Dominant

Principle

The amendments to section 3 and the introduction of section 17B represent one of the most significant philosophical shifts in the history of the NDIS.

The Bill reframes the Scheme so that supports are to be funded only “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme”.

While financial sustainability is clearly relevant to any publicly funded scheme, the concern is that the Bill elevates sustainability from a background consideration into a dominant guiding principle.

Importantly:

• “financial sustainability” is not clearly defined;
• no balancing framework is provided;
• and there are limited safeguards preventing sustainability considerations from overriding individual participant needs.

The Bill repeatedly reinforces:

• efficient use of funding;
• equitable distribution across participants;
• lower-cost alternatives;
• maximum support caps;
• maximum worker ratios;
• and reliance on informal or community supports. Most concerning is proposed section 34A.

Submission 52

The proposed amendments expressly permit funding reductions across categories of supports for the purpose of “ensuring the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme”.

Critically, subsection 34A(5) expressly states that these reductions may apply even where:

• the funding provided is less than the total cost of a reasonable and necessary support; and/or

• the funding provided is less than the total costs of all reasonable and necessary supports under the plan.

This is an extraordinary provision.

It effectively acknowledges that participants may meet the statutory criteria for supports to be considered reasonable and necessary, yet still not receive sufficient funding to access those supports.

This fundamentally alters the practical meaning of “reasonable and necessary supports”.

The Scheme increasingly risks shifting from:

• an individualised rights-based model;
• toward a capped and rationed funding model primarily driven by fiscal constraints. As both a disability advocate and parent, this is one of the most concerning aspects of the Bill.

The practical reality is that participants do not experience disability in abstract policy terms.

Supports determine:

• whether participants can safely live at home;

• attend school;

• access therapies;

• participate in the community;

• maintain relationships;

• avoid hospitalisation;

• and live with dignity. There is a very significant difference between:

• ensuring sustainability;

• and expressly legislating that reasonable and necessary supports may remain unfunded.

Submission 52

3. Erosion of the Individualised Nature of the NDIS The original intent of the NDIS was to provide individualised supports tailored to the needs and goals of each participant.

The proposed reforms increasingly move away from this principle.

The Bill introduces:

• funding caps;
• support intensity caps;
• worker-to-participant ratios;
• increased emphasis on group-based supports;
• reliance on community inclusion models;
• and stronger presumptions regarding parental and informal care. The Explanatory Memorandum openly acknowledges that reductions in Social and Community Participation funding are expected to reduce some participants’ ability to access the community.

The proposed Bill appears to involve:

• greater reliance on group activities;
• lower-cost supports;
• and mainstream community participation. While group-based supports may work well for some participants, they are entirely inappropriate or unsafe for others.

Many participants:

• require 1:1 support due to behavioural needs;
• have psychosocial disabilities;
• experience sensory overload;
• have communication barriers;
• or have complex medical or trauma-related needs. There is a real risk that “efficiency” and “equity” become code for standardisation.

The NDIS was never intended to operate as a one-size-fits-all system.

The more supports are standardised around broad categories and actuarial assumptions, the greater the risk that participants with complex or atypical needs are disadvantaged.

Submission 52

4. Concerns Regarding the Relationship Between Parliament and the Judiciary

A number of proposed amendments appear directed toward overcoming or limiting the practical effect of recent Tribunal and Federal Court decisions.

Examples include:

• replacing “arising from” with “arising directly from”;
• strengthening alternative support exclusions;
• increasing emphasis on sustainability;
• and narrowing reassessment rights. I acknowledge that Parliament is legally entitled to amend legislation.

However, there is legitimate concern where amendments appear designed primarily to reverse judicial interpretations that expanded participant protections or clarified participant rights.

The Federal Court plays a critical role in:

• ensuring lawful decision-making;
• maintaining accountability;
• interpreting legislation independently;
• and protecting participants from arbitrary administrative action. The practical effect of these reforms may be to significantly reduce the effectiveness of external review mechanisms.

This is particularly concerning in a Scheme where:

• participants already face substantial power imbalances;

• access to legal representation is inconsistent;

• delays are common;

• and many participants are highly vulnerable. As both a lawyer and advocate, I am concerned about the cumulative effect of:

• narrowing legislative wording;

• increasing executive discretion;

• reducing reviewable decisions;

• and introducing automatic administrative processes. The independence of the judiciary and the Tribunal system should not be viewed as an obstacle to sustainability.

Submission 52

Independent oversight is a core safeguard in any administrative scheme of this scale.

5. “Directly Arising” From Impairments The proposed change from supports “arising from” impairments to supports “arising directly from” impairments may have profound consequences.

Real-world disability is rarely linear.

Many participants experience:

• multiple impairments;
• co-occurring diagnoses;
• psychosocial impacts;
• chronic pain;
• trauma;
• overlapping functional limitations;
• and interacting social, behavioural and environmental factors. The proposed wording risks creating artificial distinctions between impairments and their practical consequences.

This may disproportionately affect participants with:

• psychosocial disability;
• autism;
• degenerative conditions;
• neurological conditions;
• chronic illness;
• and participants with complex presentations. It is also likely to generate extensive litigation regarding causation and attribution.

As a practical matter, many supports exist precisely because disability impacts are interconnected and cumulative.

The proposed wording risks excluding participants whose needs do not fit neatly into compartmentalised diagnostic categories.

6. “Appropriate Treatment” and Permanence

Requirements

The proposed permanence amendments are deeply concerning.

Submission 52

The Bill proposes that impairments are not considered permanent unless:

• all appropriate treatment has been undertaken; and
• no remaining treatment is likely to materially improve or alleviate impacts. Most concerning is proposed section 25A(2), which provides that treatment may still be considered “appropriate treatment” even where a participant’s individual circumstances restrict access to that treatment.

The legislation expressly notes that this includes:

• financial circumstances; and
• geographical location. This provision is highly problematic.

It effectively permits decision-makers to conclude that a participant has not undertaken all appropriate treatment even where:

• treatment is financially inaccessible;

• unavailable in regional or remote areas;

• subject to excessive waiting lists;

• or otherwise practically unattainable. This disproportionately affects:

• rural and regional participants;

• low-income participants;

• participants without family support;

• and participants requiring specialised services. As a parent of a child with disabilities, this provision is particularly alarming.

Families already spend years:

• navigating waiting lists;
• paying privately for therapies;
• travelling long distances;
• and trying to access services that often do not exist in practice. The proposed provisions risk creating unrealistic and inequitable access barriers.

7. Restrictions on Reassessments The proposed reassessment framework significantly narrows participant access to reassessment.

Submission 52

Participants will only be eligible for reassessment where there has been a:

• significant;

• ongoing;

• and qualifying change in circumstances. The Bill also:

• increases decision timeframes from 21 days to 90 days;

• limits reassessments based on funding exhaustion;

• and expands CEO discretion regarding reassessment requests. Many disabilities fluctuate.

Many participants experience:

• episodic deterioration;
• changing support networks;
• carer breakdown;
• mental health deterioration;
• housing instability;
• or rapidly evolving behavioural needs. The requirement for changes to be “significant” and “ongoing” may leave many participants without timely access to urgently needed supports.

The practical effect may be delayed intervention, increased crises and greater long-term costs.

8. Participants Deemed “Not Contactable” The proposed powers allowing participant plans to be suspended where participants are considered “not contactable” raise serious concerns.

Many highly vulnerable participants may:

• move frequently;
• experience homelessness;
• have psychosocial disability;
• have communication barriers;
• lack stable phone or internet access;
• or struggle to engage with administrative processes. There is substantial risk that vulnerable participants may lose supports not because they no longer require them, but because they struggle to navigate bureaucracy.

Submission 52

The consequences of suspension may be catastrophic.

Participants may lose:

• therapies;
• support workers;
• housing arrangements;
• behavioural supports;
• and critical daily living assistance. The Bill provides insufficient safeguards to ensure vulnerable participants are not unintentionally excluded from the Scheme.

9. Increased Reliance on Informal Supports and Family

Care

The amendments increasingly reinforce reliance on:

• family;
• carers;
• informal supports;
• and community networks. This is particularly evident in the provisions relating to children.

The Bill creates stronger presumptions regarding parental responsibility and limits funding where supports are viewed as reducing parental burden below what is “reasonably expected”.

As a parent of a child with significant disabilities, I am deeply concerned about the cumulative effect of these provisions.

Families already experience:

• burnout;
• financial stress;
• relationship breakdown;
• reduced workforce participation;
• and chronic exhaustion. The assumption that families can indefinitely absorb increasing caring responsibilities is unrealistic and unsustainable.

There is also significant inconsistency across families regarding:

Submission 52

• financial capacity;
• available support networks;
• housing stability;
• health;
• and caring capacity. The NDIS should not operate on assumptions that all families can provide unlimited unpaid care.

10. Automated Decision-Making The proposed provisions relating to automation and automated administrative action raise significant concerns regarding:

• transparency;

• accountability;

• procedural fairness;

• and algorithmic decision-making. Participants are entitled to understand:

• how decisions affecting their lives are made;

• what evidence is relied upon;

• and how conclusions are reached. The increasing complexity of the Scheme already creates barriers for participants.

The introduction of automated processes risks further distancing participants from meaningful human engagement and explanation.

This is particularly concerning where decisions involve:

• complex functional impacts;
• psychosocial disability;
• fluctuating conditions;
• trauma;
• or culturally diverse participants. Human circumstances cannot always be accurately reduced to standardised scoring systems or algorithmic models.

There is also legitimate community concern that increasing reliance on automated administrative action within a highly complex social support system risks creating “Robo Debt”-style outcomes.

Submission 52

The Robo Debt Royal Commission demonstrated the very serious consequences that can occur where automated government decision-making processes operate without sufficient transparency, human oversight, procedural fairness and safeguards.

Many NDIS participants are highly vulnerable and may:

• struggle to understand automated decisions;
• lack capacity to challenge incorrect outcomes;
• experience communication barriers;
• or simply disengage from the system entirely due to stress and confusion. The NDIS involves nuanced human circumstances that often cannot be fairly assessed through rigid automated processes or standardised data assumptions alone.

Any use of automation within the Scheme must therefore involve:

• genuine human oversight;
• transparent reasoning;
• accessible review mechanisms;
• and strong procedural fairness safeguards.

11. Conclusion The NDIS unquestionably requires:

• sustainability;
• accountability;
• consistency;
• and safeguards against misuse. However, the proposed Bill goes far beyond fraud prevention or administrative reform.

Taken cumulatively, the reforms represent a substantial shift away from:

• individualised support;

• participant autonomy;

• procedural fairness;

• and rights-based decision-making. The reforms increasingly position participants within:

• actuarial frameworks;

Submission 52

• sustainability models;

• funding caps;

• and standardised assumptions. As a lawyer, I am concerned about:

• legislative uncertainty;

• reduced reviewability;

• increased executive discretion;

• and diminished practical oversight. As an advocate, I am concerned about:

• vulnerable participants;

• barriers to access;

• narrowing eligibility;

• and practical impacts on daily life. As a parent, I am concerned about what these reforms mean for children with disability and their futures.

The NDIS was created because Australia recognised that disability support should not depend entirely on:

• family capacity;
• wealth;
• geography;
• or luck. Any reform process must ensure that sustainability measures do not undermine the core purpose and human rights foundations of the Scheme itself.

I strongly urge careful reconsideration of:

• the extent of executive discretion;
• the proposed sustainability provisions;
• the narrowing of support eligibility;
• the “appropriate treatment” provisions;

Submission 52

• and the cumulative impact these reforms may have on vulnerable Australians.

DISABILITY ./

Solutions & Y

OUTCOMES                   Niti Prakash                   I                   CEO I Disability Solutions & Outcomes

Website: www.disa bi litysol utionsa ndoutcomes.co m.au