Impacts on priority populations under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill (Individual advocacy)

Submission 694

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Prepared by:

Sara J. Stanley

Principal Strategist, SDAIC

ABN: 60773652808

Email: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com Navigate - Facilitate - Translate

Page 1 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

Executive Summary

Specialist Disability Access & Inclusion Consulting (SDAIC) welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee regarding the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026.

While fiscal sustainability is a legitimate policy objective, the Bill introduces structural changes that would significantly narrow access to the NDIS, reduce participant agency, weaken safeguards, and shift the Scheme away from its foundational purpose as a rights-based, individualised system of support. Several provisions are inconsistent with the

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), Australia’s

obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and contemporary clinical and disability practice.

The Bill’s redefinition of functional capacity, restrictions on participant-initiated reassessment, automatic plan renewal, and Ministerial power to reduce funding collectively create a system that is less responsive, less transparent, and less equitable. These changes disproportionately harm priority populations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, women, people with psychosocial disability, children in out-of-home care, people in remote areas, individuals with complex communication needs, and people experiencing poverty or homelessness.

The Bill also introduces expanded compliance powers and automated decision-making without adequate safeguards, transparency, or oversight. These measures risk entrenching systemic bias, retraumatising vulnerable participants, and undermining trust in the Scheme.

SDAIC urges the Committee to recommend substantial amendments to ensure that the NDIS remains a scheme grounded in dignity, autonomy, cultural safety, and genuine inclusion. Without significant revision, the Bill risks deepening inequity, reducing access to essential supports, and compromising Australia’s commitments under the UNCRPD and the National Disability Strategy.

Page 2 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

2. Summary of Key Concerns………………………………………………………………………4

3. Detailed Analysis……………………………………………………………….5 3.1 Functional Capacity (s9B)……………………………………………………………………5 3.2 Restriction of Participant-Initiated Reassessment (s48A)……………………..6 3.3 Automatic Plan Renewal (s50A) ………………………………………………………….6 3.4 Ministerial Power to Reduce Funding (s34A) ………………………………………7 3.5 Tightening Permanence and Treatability …………………………………………….7 3.6 Developmental Delay Changes ………………………………………………………….8 3.7 Expanded Compliance Powers ………………………………………………………….8 3.8 Automation of Administrative Action ……………………………………………….9

4. Cross-Cutting Issues ……………………………………………………………………………..9

4.1 No Cumulative Impact Modelling …………………………………………………….9

4.2 Disproportionate Impact on Priority Populations ……………………………..9

5. Gendered Impacts: How the Bill Harms Women with Disability …………….9
6. Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………..10
7. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………..11 Endnotes ……………………………………………………………………………………………..12

Page 3 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

1. Introduction Specialist Disability Access & Inclusion Consulting (SDAIC) welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee regarding the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026 (“the Bill”).

SDAIC works nationally with people with disability, families, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, service providers, and justice, health, and education systems. Our work spans complex case navigation, systemic advocacy, policy design, and organisational capability building. We have deep experience supporting people whose disability is compounded by trauma, poverty, cultural obligations, psychosocial distress, and structural exclusion.

This submission identifies significant legislative, administrative, and human-rights risks in the Bill. While fiscal sustainability is a legitimate policy objective, the Bill introduces structural changes that would narrow access to the Scheme, reduce participant agency, weaken safeguards, embed automatic plan renewals without co-design, enable Ministerial funding reductions without merits review, expand compliance powers without proportionality, and disproportionately harm priority populations.

The Bill, in its current form, risks fundamentally altering the character of the NDIS from an individualised, rights-based scheme to a rationed, administratively-driven program.¹

2. Summary of Key Concerns The new definition of functional capacity (s9B) is inconsistent with the ICF, the UNCRPD, and contemporary clinical practice.²

Participant-initiated reassessment is effectively removed unless strict and narrow conditions are met (s48A).

Automatic plan renewal (s50A) removes co-design, goal setting, and evidence-based planning.

Ministerial power to reduce funding (s34A) creates a de facto cap on supports without parliamentary disallowance or merits review.

Tightening of permanence and treatability risks excluding people with psychosocial, fluctuating, or chronic conditions.

Developmental delay changes narrow early intervention pathways for children.

Page 4 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

Expanded compliance powers lack proportionality and independent oversight.

Automation of administrative action introduces algorithmic risk without transparency or safeguards.

Priority populations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, CALD communities, people with psychosocial disability, children in out-of-home care, and people in remote areas — face disproportionate harm.

No cumulative impact modelling has been published.

3. Detailed Analysis 3.1 Functional Capacity (s9B): A Regressive and Incoherent Standard

The Bill defines functional capacity as the ability to perform activities “in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.”

This definition is incompatible with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which explicitly recognises disability as an interaction between impairment, environment, and personal factors.

Systemic risks

• People whose functioning appears adequate only because of intensive informal support may be deemed ineligible.

• Children whose functioning is supported by structured school environments may be excluded.

• People with psychosocial disability may be assessed outside the context of triggers, stressors, and relational supports.

• The definition invites inconsistent interpretation and litigation. Impact on priority populations

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: kinship obligations and community support may be misinterpreted as “capacity”.

• CALD communities: family-provided scaffolding may mask functional limitations.

• People with trauma histories: functioning varies dramatically by environment. Page 5 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

• People in remote areas: environmental barriers are central to disability experience. 3.2 Restriction of Participant-Initiated Reassessment (s48A): Removal of a Core

Safeguard

The Bill requires participants to meet strict, multilayered conditions before the CEO must consider a reassessment request. These include “significant and ongoing” changes, “substantial reduction” in daily activities, and “unanticipated” changes in circumstances.

Systemic risks

• Participants experiencing predictable deterioration may be unable to trigger reassessment.

• Carer breakdown may not qualify if not deemed “unanticipated”.

• Administrative errors cannot be corrected unless s48A conditions are met.

• Children’s needs evolve rapidly; the Bill locks them into outdated plans. Impact on priority populations

• Children: developmental changes are predictable, not “unanticipated”.

• People with psychosocial disability: episodic changes may not be “ongoing”.

• People in poverty: housing instability is predictable but harmful.

• Carers: burnout is foreseeable but devastating.³ 3.3 Automatic Plan Renewal (s50A): Removal of Co-Design and Individualisation

Under s50A, plans are automatically renewed for 12 months without a new statement of participant supports, participant involvement, updated goals, or updated evidence. One-off and time-limited supports are automatically removed.

Systemic risks

• Plans become administratively convenient rather than individually tailored.
• Outdated supports persist for years.
• Participants with progressive or fluctuating disability fall behind.
• Children’s developmental needs outpace their plans. Page 6 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

Impact on priority populations

• Children in out-of-home care: support needs change rapidly; automatic renewal entrenches outdated supports.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants: culturally safe planning requires relationship-based engagement.

• People with psychosocial disability: episodic needs require responsive planning.

• People in rural/remote areas: reduced planning touchpoints worsen access barriers.⁴

3.4 Ministerial Power to Reduce Funding (s34A): A De Facto Cap Without Safeguards

The Bill allows the Minister to reduce funding for entire groups of supports by legislative instrument. The Bill explicitly states that funding may be less than the cost of reasonable and necessary supports.

Systemic risks

• Creates a scheme-wide funding cap without parliamentary disallowance.

• No requirement for modelling, consultation, or independent oversight.

• No merits review available to participants.

• Undermines the statutory guarantee of reasonable and necessary supports. Impact on priority populations

• People with high-cost supports are disproportionately affected.

• People in remote areas face higher service delivery costs.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities already experience market failure.⁵

3.5 Tightening Permanence and Treatability: Exclusion by Medical Gatekeeping

The Bill narrows access where impairments are considered “treatable”, without defining treatment, adherence, partial response, or fluctuating conditions.

Systemic risks

• Psychosocial disability is vulnerable to exclusion. Page 7 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

• Chronic illness and developmental conditions may be deemed “treatable”.

• Creates incentives for over-medicalisation. Impact on priority populations

• People with trauma-related disability: treatment is not linear or universally effective.

• CALD communities: cultural barriers may be misinterpreted as non-compliance.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: mistrust of medical systems may be penalised.⁶

3.6 Developmental Delay Changes: Narrowing Early Intervention

The shift from “in one” to “in relation to one” developmental domain narrows eligibility.

Impact

• Children with language delay, social-communication differences, or psychosocial developmental issues may lose access.

• State and Territory systems are not resourced to absorb displaced children.⁷

3.7 Expanded Compliance Powers: Overreach Without Safeguards

The Bill expands information-gathering, civil penalties, and provider controls without proportionality or independent oversight.

Systemic risks

• Participants may be caught in investigations intended for providers.

• Privacy risks escalate.

• Provider exit reduces market availability and places strain on multiple systems. Impact on priority populations

• People with cognitive impairment: vulnerable to coercive processes.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: historical oversurveillance increases mistrust.

• People with psychosocial disability: compliance processes can trigger distress. Page 8 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

3.8 Automation of Administrative Action: Algorithmic Risk Without Transparency

The Bill enables automated decision-making without transparency requirements, human-in-the-loop safeguards, or fairness audits.

Systemic risks

• Algorithmic bias may disproportionately affect people with complex or atypical disability presentations.

• Participants may not understand or challenge automated decisions. Impact on priority populations

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: data gaps and cultural bias in algorithms are well-documented.

• People with psychosocial disability: nonlinear patterns of need are poorly captured.

• People in remote areas: limited digital literacy compounds disadvantage.⁸

4. Cross-Cutting Issues

4.1 No Cumulative Impact Modelling

The Bill introduces multiple compounding restrictions without modelling who loses access, who loses supports, cost-shifting to states, impact on carers, or impact on mainstream systems.

4.2 Disproportionate Impact on Priority Populations

Across all provisions, the Bill disproportionately harms Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, CALD communities, women, people with psychosocial disability, children in out-of-home care, people in remote areas, people with complex communication needs, and people experiencing poverty or homelessness.

Taken together, the provisions of the Bill create compound and disproportionate harm for priority populations who already experience entrenched structural and systemic disadvantage.

5. Gendered Impacts: How the Bill Harms Women with Disability Women with disability constitute a priority population under the UNCRPD, the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, and the National Disability Strategy.

Page 9 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

The Bill introduces several provisions that disproportionately harm women with disability.

5.1 Narrowing Functional Capacity (s9B)

Women’s functioning is often context-dependent; assessments that ignore environmental context will systematically overestimate women’s capacity.⁹

5.2 Restricting Reassessment (s48A)

Women and children escaping violence often experience rapid, destabilising changes that may not meet the Bill’s thresholds.

5.3 Automatic Plan Renewal (s50A)

Outdated supports persist; safety-related supports may be removed.

5.4 Ministerial Power to Reduce Funding (s34A)

Women with high-cost needs or living in poverty are disproportionately affected.

5.5 Tightening Permanence and Treatability

Psychosocial and chronic conditions disproportionately affecting women may be deemed “treatable”.

5.6 Compliance and Automation

Women with trauma histories face heightened risk of retraumatisation and disadvantage

6. Recommendations

7. Redraft s9B to align with the ICF and UNCRPD.

8. Restore participant-initiated reassessment independent of s48A conditions.

9. Modify s50A to require a light-touch annual review with participant involvement.

10. Subject s34A determinations to parliamentary disallowance and independent impact assessment.

11. Define “treatable” and protect access for fluctuating and psychosocial conditions.

12. Maintain broader developmental delay criteria to preserve early intervention pathways.

13. Introduce proportionality and oversight for compliance powers. Page 10 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

8. Mandate algorithmic transparency and human review for automated decisions.

9. Publish cumulative impact modelling before commencement.

10. Embed safeguards for priority populations, including culturally safe assessment pathways.

11. Conclusion The Bill represents a fundamental shift away from the original intent of the NDIS. It narrows access, reduces participant agency, and embeds mechanisms that prioritise administrative efficiency and fiscal control over individualised, rights-based support.

For priority populations including women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, CALD communities, people with psychosocial disability, children, and people in remote areas, the Bill poses serious risks of exclusion, harm, and systemic inequity.

SDAIC urges the Committee to recommend substantial amendments to ensure the NDIS remains grounded in dignity, autonomy, and genuine inclusion.

Endnotes

1. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March 2007, 2515, UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008) art 4(3).

2. World Health Organization, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (Classification, WHO, 2001).

3. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety Survey, Australia (Catalogue No 4906.0, 2022) Table 14.

4. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (n 1) art 19.

5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report 2022–23 (Report, 2023).

6. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report (2023) vol 6.

7. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (n 1) art 26. Page 11 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com

Submission 694

8. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report (2023) vol 9.

9. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia (Catalogue No 4430.0, 2022) Table 1.2.

Page 12 of 12

Approved by Sara J Stanley, Principal Strategist, Specialist Disability Access and Inclusion Consulting

ABN: 60773652808

EMAIL: specialistdisabilityandinclusionconsulting@outlook.com