Loss of critical supports without individual reassessment (Participant experience)

Submission 562

Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

From: (Parent, Guardian and Nominee of NDIS Participant) Date: 24/5/2026

Introduction

As a NDIS participant / family member, I recognise the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Scheme. The intention of this Bill—to stabilise costs, improve integrity, and secure the NDIS for future generations—is supported in principle.

However, significant elements of the Bill, as currently drafted, introduce uncertainty, risk, and potential harm to people with disability and the supports we rely on daily. Many of the reforms shift critical decisions into legislative instruments or future design processes, without sufficient detail, consultation, or safeguards.

This submission outlines the most immediate and significant concerns, particularly where changes directly affect participants’ lives, continuity of support, choice and control, and market stability.

1. Impact on the People We Support The Bill introduces mechanisms that allow for scheme-wide reductions in funding for categories of supports, including through “support determinations” and revised interpretations of reasonable and necessary supports.

From a participant perspective, these are not abstract policy settings—they translate into:

 Fewer opportunities to participate in the community  Reduced access to therapies and capacity building supports  Increased reliance on informal supports (already stretched and burnt out)  Heightened risk of social isolation and regression in skills

The Bill explicitly enables The Minister to reduce funding across groups of supports rather than based on individual need. This fundamentally shifts the Scheme away from person centred design toward a system-driven allocation model.

Concern: Participants will lose critical supports without any individual reassessment of need, and without access to review for these changes. These changes will likely cause further distress, increased mental health challenges, increase impact on carers and will inevitably increase costs over the longer term.

Recommendation:

 Each reduction requires individualised impact assessments before any reductions take effect

Submission 562

 Ensure review rights and safeguards for participants affected by support determinations  Embed UNCRPD principles of choice, control, and participation in all funding changes

2. Lack of Detail: Commissioned Provider Panel / Plan Management The Bill proposes a major structural shift by limiting plan management providers to those selected through a commissioned panel arrangement, requiring a deed of arrangement with the Agency.

While aimed at addressing integrity issues, the detail provided is insufficient to understand:

 How providers will be selected  What criteria will be used  How participant choice will be preserved  How continuity of relationships will be managed

The Bill itself acknowledges a large and fragmented market and intends to significantly reduce provider numbers.

Concern: This reform risks:

 Removing trusted providers  Disrupting long-standing relationships  Reducing innovation and diversity  Concentrating power in a small number of providers

Recommendation:

 Mandate transparent selection criteria and public reporting  Guarantee participant choice of provider and ability to change  Require co-design with participants and providers before implementation  Provide a clear, funded transition plan for participants

3. Absence of Clarity: Future Role of Support Coordinators The Bill significantly restricts who can request plan reassessments, removing this function from intermediaries such as support coordinators.

At the same time, it does not clearly define:

 The future role of support coordinators  Whether their functions will be replaced  How participants will be supported to navigate increased system complexity

Concern: Support coordinators are essential for:

Submission 562

 Understanding plan rules  Connecting with services within the system and mainstream  Managing risk and safeguarding participants  Supporting decision-making  Reporting non-compliance of providers  Ensuring participants support needs are met

Reducing their role without clear alternatives risks a significant decline in the integrity of the system.

Recommendation:

 Provide clear policy direction on the future of support coordination  Ensure continuity of support during transition  Co-design future models with participants, especially those with complex needs

4. Pricing Powers Transferred to the Minister The Bill introduces a Ministerial pricing determination, transferring final decision-making power on NDIS pricing away from the independent Agency to the Minister.

While the Agency may provide advice, the Minister is the ultimate decision-maker.

Concern: This removes an important layer of independence and creates risks of:

 Politicisation of pricing decisions  Reduced transparency  Uncertainty for providers and participants  Instability in the market

The Bill allows pricing decisions to directly impact funding and what providers can charge, including differentiated pricing arrangements.

Recommendation:

 Independent oversight and review mechanisms for pricing decisions a requirement  Mandate public consultation and publication of rationale  Ensure pricing decisions are evidence-based and market-informed

5. Reset of Participant Budgets (October 2026) – Insufficient Transition Detail The Bill provides for major planning reforms from 1 October 2026, including:

 Plan renewals replacing plan continuations  Removal of rollover funding  Application of funding reductions through legislative instruments

Concern: There is:

Submission 562

 No clear transition roadmap for participants  Limited explanation of how changes will be communicated  No detail on supports available to those significantly impacted

Participants face the prospect of sudden reductions in funding with limited preparation or recourse.

Recommendation:

 Publish a detailed transition plan at least 12 months in advance  Provide individual transition support for participants  Ensure no participant is worse off without review and mitigation supports

6. Lack of Consultation: Inclusive Communities Fund While referenced as a key reform complementing reduced individual funding, the design of replacement or community-based supports is not included in this Bill or Explanatory Memorandum.

The Bill itself notes that many elements will be developed later through rules or consultation processes.

Concern: Participants are being asked to accept reductions in individual supports without clarity on what will replace them.

Recommendation:

 Require full co-design and public consultation before implementation  Delay any reduction in individual supports until replacement systems are operational  Ensure funding models do not reduce individual choice and control

7. Differentiated Pricing for Unregistered Providers The Bill enables different pricing arrangements for different types of providers, including based on registration status.

Concern: This will likely:

 Disadvantage smaller unregistered providers  Reduce service availability in regional areas and thin markets  Increase costs for participants  Undermine participant choice

Many community participation supports are currently delivered by smaller unregistered providers.

Recommendation:

Submission 562

 Undertake a comprehensive market impact assessment  Protect viability of small and regional providers  Ensure pricing settings do not reduce participant access or choice

Conclusion

We believe the NDIS must be sustainable—but sustainability cannot come at the expense of:

 Human rights  Inclusion and participation  Continuity of care  Participant choice and control

This Bill introduces sweeping structural changes, many of which are not yet fully designed, consulted on, or safeguarded.

The concerns raised in this submission represent the most immediate and significant risks to participants and families.

Key Recommendations Summary

1. Protect participants from blanket funding reductions without individual assessment
2. Provide clarity and consultation on provider panel arrangements
3. Define and safeguard the future role of support coordinators
4. Restore transparency and oversight in pricing decisions
5. Develop a clear, participant-focused transition plan for changes
6. Co-design the Inclusive Communities Fund before implementation
7. Assess and mitigate market impacts of differentiated pricing

Final Statement

For participants and families, the NDIS is not just a policy—it is what makes everyday life possible. Any reform must proceed with care, transparency, and genuine partnership with the people it is designed to support.