Submission 720
Submission to the National Disability Insurance
Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 28 May 2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee
on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. However I am disappointed that the period for submissions has been just 2 weeks. It is not enough time for a comprehensive response by the disability community for whom these changes directly affect with lifelong consequences.
I am a registered provider for the NDIS, and a registered music therapist with the Australian Music Therapy Association (AMTA) since 1985.
I have worked in this sector since 1986 in community, local government, education and public health settings, as well as volunteering for AMTA. I have run my private practice since 1998 and have been registered with the NDIS since 2016. While I do not have a disability, I have provided music therapy services to a large number of people with disability, and feel I have a solid understanding of the challenges they face.
1
Submission 720
I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
I am concerned that the consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is far too short for any meaningful consultation with the Disability community. It is insufficient time and lacks understanding and appreciation of the barriers people with disability face in many aspects of life. It impacts their ability to be able to respond in a comprehensive manner to this bill, which will have far reaching effects on their lives. This is a gross insult to the disability community and appears by design to restrict proper consultation. I have circulated your information to my participants and hope they will find time over the weekend to compose a response. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
It is inappropriate that this important piece of far reaching legislation be restricted to 2 weeks for consultation, when the outcomes have such far reaching consequences for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule
- by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants: These decisions, that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be
2
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected. This is unacceptable. Where is the transparency and what restitution is available? How can the minister know what is in the best interests of a participant? How can the Minister determine levels of supports which are so life changing? This instrument provides powers which are disproportionate and would appear to contravene the Rights of People with disability.
As I clearly recall that there was a determination (by Bill Shorten when he was the Minister for the NDIS) to instigate key workers for NDIS participants, people who knew their participants and could provide planning and services over time to the same people with disability. I can attest to the benefits of ongoing relationships in delivering services over the long term. People with disabilities need to have trust in Government services too and this instrument strips away any shred of trust and undermines the choice and control tenet, from which the NDIS was established.
Additionally, the NDIS was designed for people with long term and chronic disability. These people should not have to prove constantly that they have a disability.
I see people with chronic and long term disabilities, for whom the NDIS was designed. People with Severe and profound intellectual disability multiply disabled people in wheel chairs for whom access to the community and to activities of daily life require the assistance of a support worker. These people do not ask for anything but a dignified ‘ordinary’ life. Many of my participants rely on professional contacts for companionship and socialisation – they have no, what able bodied and typical developed people might call ‘ friends”. Some of my participants do not have family to support them. For those that do the toll is enormous. I could cite the long days and nights of parents stressing out over ART reviews and fighting Collins Street Lawyers that the NDIS employs. Who, on the day of the meeting are offered all that was asked for at the start. Why is it ok for the NDIS to fight participants through lawyers for the supports they require? Why is this the process?. So much increased stress on already stressed parents, and wasted time and money which should be available to the participant, not Collins St lawyers.
3
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
Recommendation:
-
Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
-
Ensure that the central tenets of the NDIS act are upheld –for people with chronic and long term disability, to access an ‘ordinary’ life, with choice and control.
Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions
The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part 4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.
How this affects participants: This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
Recommendation:
- Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.
4
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
- For all planners to be fully qualified in disability related studies and for their qualifications to be provided to participants on their plans
Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories
The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal (Schedule 1 Part 5).
How this affects participants: A participant’s community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high cost items will lose that ability entirely.
The ability to access supports for participants especially in rural and remote regions are going to be severely affected by this change. Services are already thin and inconsistent. Even for urban based participants access to supports and understanding how to use NDIS funding can be mystifying for new participants and their families. This often results in a delay or lag in getting services in to assist. Wait lists also confound the ability to use funds efficiently and in a timely manner even when services are available in the community. This decision is unfair and discriminatory.
Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
5
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3).
How this affects participants: People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.
Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need
The issue: The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.
The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
6
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
How this affects participants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
People with Mental health conditions and people of First Nations background will be severely affected by this assessment tool. It must be more nuanced than it currently is with more work to ensure that the needs of all people with disability are able to be appropriately assessed with understanding and culturally appropriate practice.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Supports cut before replacement system is ready
The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.
How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
It is of great concern that Foundational supports and the Thriving Kids program is so vague. As a provider, I have very little understanding of how my practice will provide supports to my current participants. They will no doubt fall between the cracks of lots of motherhood statements and no services to link into that are appropriately ready or
7
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
designed to meet the needs of children with disability. I understand that there is a push for mainstream service usage with wrap around support - but where is the model and detail for that? Who is providing these links. Do not remove NDIS services before the appropriate pathway and services are available. Do not let people fall between the cracks
Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.
Registration of Providers (Schedule 2, Part 1)
I concur with the AMTA on several important issues. AMTA has previously made submissions regarding how RMTs and other allied health professionals are defined as NDIS providers and the need for risk-proportionate registration. Being unregistered under the NDIS does not mean being unregulated or unqualified. AMTA is Australia’s government-recognised certifying body for music therapy, and a member of AHPA and NASRHP. AMTA sets national standards, scope of practice and assessment processes, with certified RMTs required to meet strict professional and consumer safety standards. We strongly urge that any updates to the regulatory framework are proportional to practice size, and take into consideration other external regulation mechanisms, to avoid duplication of processes and costs to providers. Mandatory registration is of concern if that does not take these factors into account which may result in loss of access to services for vulnerable participants.
Recommendations:
-
Existing regulatory requirements for allied health professions are considered
-
Cost and administrative burden to already regulated professions must be minimised
-
I support AMTA and AHPA’s recommendation of an ‘enrolment’ model alongside current regulatory approach
8
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
Recommendations:
- More clarity about the process
- Safeguards for situations beyond the provider’s control Pricing – Decision Making (Schedule 3, Part 1) There has been the lack of transparency and due process in current pricing decision-making. We support AHPA’s call for; (1) greater clarity about benchmarking; (2) how the data gaps will be addressed and; (3) how the cost of-service delivery is quantified. Our peak body, AMTA noted that the decision to reduce the hourly rate for music therapy was made based on inaccurate data, and is yet to receive clarification on the process that led to this decision. We acknowledge the importance of government oversight in pricing for scheme sustainability, and we express our concern that current proposed changes allow for the Minister to make changes to the pricing with no clear independent oversight. These changes risk the introduction of unsustainable rates for providers, which places participants at risk of being unable to access essential services.
Pricing must be reviewed independently, through genuine, meaningful consultation, and that findings are published transparently with evidence and explanations for any pricing decisions are made public.
Recommendations:
- The Minister does not have unilateral decision making on pricing
- Independent pricing reviews are undertaken and published
- Evidence and explanations for pricing changes are made public Automation of Administrative Action (Schedule 3, Part 2) We are concerned that automation of systems may pose a risk to participants in the manner of Robodebt and the Support at Home ‘Integrated Assessment
9
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
Tool’. Proposed changes appear to imply that automation includes ‘evaluative judgement’, without clinical judgement or oversight. We are concerned about reduced pathways to challenge decisions, whether human or automated, and advocate for clear appeal pathways. Recommendations:
- Ensure the right to challenge decisions is maintained
- Ensure that automated systems have built-in human oversight and monitoring procedures
Summary: This legislation has far-reaching consequences for people living with disability. That the Agency has commissioned Redbridge for $400,000 to establish how to make the cuts to the NDIS palatable to the Australian Public is a gross misuse of NDIS money. The bureaucracy of the NDIS needs to be addressed and wastage reduced. Addressing fraud is required but not the big ticket item as claimed in the media, accounting for only 4% of the costs of the NDIS. Targeting participants as a way of reducing the cost of the NDIS is misaligned with the values of the Labor government and contrary to the foundations and tenets of the NDIS. Noone wants to be disabled and the process for accessing the NDIS is typically expensive and arduous. Addressing the cost s of the administration of the scheme must look at - the salaries of the CEO, the use of lawyers to fight participants and gross misuse of funds such as the commissioning Redbridge. Additionally, returning the costs to the States via Thriving Kids for children with mild to moderate disability and autism is a mere cost shifting exercise. The services were stripped away once the NDIS was rolled out so we know these services do not exist, and to reinstitute them but October 1, 2026 is unrealistic. It risks, or, as I predict, ensures that there will be children who fall through the gaps. Cuts are already in place for participants, and services like mind are likely to fail, reducing access for participoants to services in the community. The result will be increased
10
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 720
pressure on other services such as hospitals and mental health care which are already under pressure and over used. Please remember that for every $1 spend in the NDIS, $2.25 is generated. Stripping away the NDIS services to participants has far reaching effects for the economy and employment.
The NDIS does need to be better administered but it must not come at the cost of the participants.
11
JAM music therapy Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme