Submission 593
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Inquiry
Introduction
We are the parents of a participant under the NDIS who is a young male adult of 22 years, diagnosed with severe autism and intellectual disability. Our son is entirely reliant upon us and other people for his daily care, transport and other needs. He has limited speech and no effective means of self care.
It should be noted that our care for our son commenced before the introduction of the NDIS. Our experience of life prior to the NDIS involved significant financial hardship, an inability to provide appropriate care and a lack of availability of services. This all significantly improved with the intervention of the NDIS and our son’s development has been greatly improved beyond what would have been possible without the NDIS. Indeed, he is able to undertake productive activities now through a service provider, within his capabilities, to be able to contribute to society in ways that would have been impossible without the NDIS and the services that he has access to under it. Our son has helped to pack food for meals on wheels, deliver flyers and various other activities with the care and support of his support workers. In the absence of this, our son would never have been able to make a meaningful contribution and would not have been able to develop the sense of purpose and achievement that drives progress for someone like him.
Whilst we acknowledge that our son’s severe disability means that he is unlikely to be excluded from NDIS funding, there are some developments in the proposed Amendment Bill upon which, we would like to make submissions.
Submissions
Schedule 1:
- Part 1: Whilst the enhanced definition of “functional capacity” seems to be an improvement for some, there is a concern that this benefit will be watered down by the effects of ss9B(2) & (3). These subsections seem to allow the NDIS Rules to prescribe criteria for determining functional capacity that could significantly undermine the intention of the amendment as proposed by the NDIS Review (see pp77 & 78 of the Review). This will lead to ambiguity and uncertainty in forward planning for participants.
Any potential changes to so foundational a term within the Act should remain in the hands of the legislature and not the executive.
- Part 2: The changes to participant-initiated plan assessments are noted, however, we provide our own experience with this and there are 2 matters that are particularly relevant: o A request for a plan review in the recent past for our son was essentially not acted upon for over a year. There was no avenue of communication to track progress; o An SMS was received by us that we would receive a call within the following 10 minutes that we needed to do our utmost to answer. This happened whilst we were away from home during the day. There then followed a call with an NDIS employee who was unfamiliar with our son’s requirements and the contents of his reports and other documents held by NDIS. Fortunately, we had the necessary information
1
Submission 593
available from memory and were able to provide meaningful responses. This conversation then formed the basis for a new plan. This method of contact would seem to be incongruous with the careful assessment requirements of the NDIS. This is a concerning administrative trait in circumstances where penalties are proposed in circumstances where participants fail to respond to contact with the NDIS.
-
Part 4: The provision that allows a percentage reduction on the funding component in plans under the proposed s34A(1), again places a significant power on the executive to massively reduce plan values. To allow a CEO initiated reduction of up to 99% in order to secure the financial sustainability of the scheme is excessive. Large sudden reductions of this kind would have catastrophic impacts upon participants. A much lower percentage of perhaps 10% would allow moderate variations by the CEO to secure the financial viability of the scheme. Anything more significant than that should be a matter for legislation. Further, it does not appear that this is to be included in the list of reviewable decisions under s99. Accordingly, the proposed s34A introduces a non-reviewable discretion to make a significant impact on plans that should be curtailed.
-
Part 6: Removing the words “reasonable and necessary” from the objects of the Act and the kinds of supports is concerning. A reduction in NDIS cost is possible whilst also being reasonable and necessary. Indeed the NDIS Review noted the issues with determining what was “reasonable and necessary” and, at action 23.2 on p224, recommended that an evidence committee be established to provide guidance on reasonable and necessary disability supports.
The proposed amendment seeks to remove the value and reasonableness of support in favour of a cost convenience. It is submitted that a thoughtful and evidence-based approach to supports is warranted within the context of “reasonableness” and “necessity”. Indeed, the definition of “Sustainability of the NDIS” as it is used in the NDIS Review is as follows (see p250 of the Review): Sustainability of the NDIS: Where the NDIS provides supports that are reasonable and necessary, demonstrably net-beneficial, and cost-effective. Governance arrangements provide clear accountabilities for managing lifecycle costs and financial risks. Scheme expenditure is predictable and provides benefits to participants, carers and the broader community, ensuring that Australians remain willing to contribute to it in an enduring manner. Accordingly, it would seem that in considering the sustainability of the NDIS, which was one of the Review’s terms of reference, (see p27 of the Review), “reasonable and necessary” supports are foundational. This is particularly relevant given the combined effect of the proposed change to s17A(4) and the introduction of the new s17B particularly the proposed s17B(5).
- Part 6 Item 66: The proposed removal of s31 should be avoided as it would remove a fundamental list of principles that serve to ensure the effectiveness of plans to address the needs of participants. It is proposed to remove this provision as the relevant principles are contained in s4 and s17B, however, these are fundamentally different principles. Section 4 is a strategic overview of the principles that the Act proposes to address. These principles are, as have been earlier submitted, recommended for change. The principles in s17B are essentially guidance principles for the CEO to address financial sustainability.
2
Submission 593
Removing s31 takes away a list of crucial principles that fundamentally serve to deliver the intention behind the legislation and should remain. It is submitted that these principles are not incorporated elsewhere in the Act.
- Part 7: The suspension of plans for lack of contact is understandable. Our only concern is that, based on our experience, contact with the NDIS is problematic in the extreme. Plans could perhaps identify an email address and phone number that must be the contact point for notices.
Schedule 3:
- Part 2: The automation of decision making in Schedule 3 is understandable. We note that not all the determinations in relation to the “designated provisions” are reviewable decisions under s99. This ought to be changed to ensure that participants have an ability to address any apparent errors that arise from automated decision-making.
Dated: 24 May, 2026
3