Supplementary submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by Dr George Taleporos
Supplementary submission on proposed section 33(2EA)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this supplementary submission to the Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the National Disability Insurance
Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I make this supplementary submission in addition to my original submission because I am deeply concerned about one of the most dangerous provisions in the Bill: proposed section 33(2EA).
This provision would allow the Minister to impose caps on essential NDIS supports, including caps on:
the amount of funding available for a support or class of supports the intensity, frequency or duration of support the worker-to-participant ratio for support
This could apply to participants generally, or to a class of participants.
In plain terms, this means a Minister could potentially decide that certain people, or people using certain supports, can only receive support up to a particular funding amount, for a particular number of hours or at a particular staffing ratio.
For people with high and complex support needs, this is a serious risk to our safety, dignity, freedom and whether we can continue living in our own homes and communities.
I am deeply concerned about this power
I am an NDIS participant with high support needs. I rely on individualised support to live safely, maintain my health, communicate, work, participate in community life and remain in my own home.
For people like me, support intensity and worker-to-participant ratios determine whether our lives are safe and possible.
Some people need 1:1 support. Some people need 2:1 support. It is the level of support assessed by professionals as required for people to live safely and with dignity.
A broad power to cap support intensity or worker-to-participant ratios below what is assessed as reasonable and necessary will place people with the highest support needs at serious risk.
It would mean people do not receive the support they need for their needs and for worker safety.
It would make current living arrangements untenable .
It would push people into group-based, congregate or institutional models, even where those models are unsafe, inappropriate or deeply traumatic.
This power could override individualised assessment
The NDIS was built on individualised support based on need.
Proposed section 33(2EA) threatens that foundation.
This is not an individual planning decision. It is a broad Ministerial power. It could apply at a population or cohort level.
That means a person may be assessed as needing a particular level of support, but a Ministerial cap could prevent that support from being funded in practice.
That is a profound shift in the nature of the NDIS.
The Scheme should not assess people’s needs on one hand and then allow a broad Ministerial instrument to cap those supports on the other.
“Having regard to safety” is not enough
I understand that the Government has said that the Minister would need to have regard to participant safety when making a determination.
That does not resolve my concern.
A Ministerial determination may consider safety at a general or cohort level. It may be informed by actuarial analysis, departmental advice and operational information. But it cannot properly assess the individual circumstances of every participant affected by a cap.
A broad determination cannot know whether a particular person needs 1:1 or 2:1 support to stay safe at home.
It cannot know whether a reduction in support intensity would make and individual unsafe.
“Having regard to safety” may require safety to be considered. It does not prevent unsafe outcomes for individuals.
That is not a sufficient safeguard for a power of this kind.
The violence and abuse risk must be taken seriously
Many people with disability have experienced violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation in group homes, institutions and shared support settings.
For some people, living alone or living in a carefully chosen arrangement with individualised support is not a lifestyle preference. It is a safeguarding need.
A person who has been harmed in a group home may require 1:1 support and a separate living arrangement to be safe.
If section 33(2EA) allows a Minister to cap support intensity or worker-to-participant ratios, it could make that person’s current safe arrangement impossible to maintain.
They may then be pressured, directly or indirectly, into shared support, group-based living or congregate settings because the capped support no longer funds what they need to live safely.
That would be unacceptable.
It would risk retraumatising people who have already been harmed.
It would remove choice and control.
It would expose people to the very environments where violence, abuse or neglect may have occurred.
The risk is not only about the current Minister
I am not only concerned about how the current Minister may intend to use this power.
Once this power is in the NDIS Act, it will be available to future Ministers.
A current and future Minister could use it in a very destructive way.
They could impose blunt caps on supports for people with complex needs.
They could restrict 1:1 or 2:1 supports.
They could push people towards group-based support models.
They could reduce the cost of the Scheme by creating unmet need, increasing risks to participants and workers, and shifting pressure onto families, hospitals, housing systems, crisis services and state and territory governments.
Relationship with section 34A
I am also concerned about proposed section 34A, which would allow the Minister to reduce funding for whole categories of supports.
Together, proposed section 34A and proposed section 33(2EA) create a deeply concerning shift.
Section 34A would allow broad cuts to categories of supports.
Section 33(2EA) would allow caps on funding, support intensity and worker-to-participant ratios.
Together, these provisions risk replacing individualised support with centralised Ministerial control over what supports people can receive.
That is not the NDIS we were promised.
That is not the NDIS people with disability fought for.
The NDIS was meant to move us away from rationed, block-funded, one-size-fits-all models. These provisions risk taking us back there.
Recommendations
I urge the Committee to recommend that proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB) be removed from the Bill.
If they are not removed, they must be substantially amended to include clear legal limits on how the power can and cannot be used.
At a minimum, the Bill should state that a determination under section 33(2EA) cannot:
-
force a participant out of their current chosen living arrangement
-
require a participant to move into a group, congregate or shared support model where individual support is required
-
reduce or remove 1:1 or 2:1 support where that support is required for participant safety, worker safety, communication, personal care, mobility, behaviour support, health needs or essential functioning
-
reduce support below the level required to maintain safety, dignity, housing stability, employment, education or community participation
-
override an individualised assessment where a higher level of support is necessary
-
apply to a participant without an individual exemption pathway
-
operate without access to reasons and merits review where the cap creates an unsafe or inappropriate outcome
-
be used to force people who have experienced violence, abuse or neglect in group settings back into group-based or congregate arrangements
Conclusion
Proposed section 33(2EA) is one of the most dangerous parts of the Bill.
It gives the Minister broad power to cap funding, support intensity and worker-to-participant ratios, would affect people with the highest and most complex support needs, would override individualised planning, would place participants and workers at risk, would force people towards unsafe or inappropriate support models, and would retraumatise people who have already experienced violence, abuse or neglect in group homes and institutional settings.
The NDIS was built on individualised support based on need.
That promise must not be replaced by hidden caps, broad Ministerial powers and cuts that put people at risk.
I urge the Committee to recommend that proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB) be deleted.
If these provisions remain in the Bill, they must include strong legal safeguards to protect participant safety, dignity, choice and control, and to ensure that broad Ministerial determinations can never override individualised support needs.