Functional assessments risk excluding vulnerable participants with psychosocial disability (Participant experience)

Submission 759

1

INCITE COLLECTIVE SPECIALIST SUPPORT COORDINATION QLD

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted by: Incite Collective Queensland

Date: June 2026

Introduction

Incite Collective welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Incite Collective is a Queensland-based disability support organisation providing Support

Coordination, Specialist Support Coordination, Psychosocial Recovery Coaching, and

capacity-building supports to participants with complex support needs. Our participants include people experiencing psychosocial disability, homelessness, justice involvement, trauma, family violence, and significant functional impairments. We currently support over 300 participants across South- East Queensland and Northern NSW regions and have operated since 2020. Our work puts us in daily contact with the practical consequences of NDIS policy — the gaps, the crises, and the outcomes that good coordination can prevent.

We acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and support reforms that improve equity, consistency, safeguarding, and participant outcomes. However, we are concerned that several provisions within the Bill risk undermining participant autonomy, access, and safety if implemented without adequate safeguards, consultation, and foundational supports already being operational.

Our submission focuses on the practical implications of the proposed reforms for participants with complex needs and the frontline services supporting them.

Key Concerns

1. Increased Ministerial Powers and Reduced Transparency The Bill grants broad powers to the Minister to determine pricing arrangements, planning frameworks, and eligibility mechanisms through delegated legislation and future rule-making. Incite Collective is concerned that:

• substantial operational changes may occur without adequate parliamentary scrutiny;
• participants and providers may experience uncertainty regarding future supports;
• there is insufficient clarity regarding how decisions will be monitored, reviewed, or challenged.

We recommend:

• stronger legislative safeguards around rule-making powers;
• mandatory co-design with disabled people and representative organisations;
• transparent publication of impact assessments before significant reforms are implemented.

Submission 759

2

2. Functional Capacity Assessments Risk Excluding Vulnerable Participants The proposed move toward functional capacity-based eligibility frameworks may disproportionately disadvantage:

• people with psychosocial disability;
• people with fluctuating conditions;
• autistic participants with masking behaviours;
• individuals with trauma histories;
• participants with limited access to formal assessments. Our organisation regularly supports participants whose disabilities are not adequately captured through standardised functional assessments alone. Case example: One of our participants supported by our organisation presented as largely stable during a formal assessment masking difficulties — maintaining basic routines and communicating clearly in a structured clinical setting. That assessment did not capture the daily supports she required to sustain that stability: weekly crisis check-ins, active coordination with housing and mental health services, and ongoing intervention to prevent tenancy breakdown. Under a purely functional assessment model, this participant would likely have been found ineligible and her plan significantly underfunded. Within three months of a previous support reduction, she needed to present to emergency services twice. The supports that prevented further escalation were not visible in any standardised measure.

Many individuals require significant support despite periods of apparent stability. Restrictive assessment thresholds risk excluding people until they are already in crisis, increasing long term costs across health, housing, justice, and emergency systems. We recommend:

• retaining flexibility within eligibility frameworks;
• recognising episodic and fluctuating disability;
• ensuring assessments are multidisciplinary and trauma-informed;
• guaranteeing appeal rights and independent review pathways.

3. Concerns Regarding “Reasonable and Necessary” Funding Changes The explanatory materials accompanying the Bill suggest future reforms may result in supports being funded below their actual cost. This presents serious risks for:

• rural and regional participants;

• participants requiring high-intensity or specialised supports;

• participants with complex psychosocial presentations;

• culturally safe and trauma-informed service delivery. In practice, underfunding essential supports may:

• increase provider withdrawal from complex cases;

• reduce participant choice and control;

• increase hospitalisation and crisis escalation;

• create workforce instability.

Submission 759

3

Incite Collective strongly recommends that:

• participant safety and outcomes remain the primary consideration in funding decisions;

• pricing reforms account for complexity loading and regional delivery costs;

• any differentiated pricing models undergo extensive consultation before implementation.

4. Risks Associated with Reductions or Redesign of Support Coordination Support Coordination and Psychosocial Recovery Coaching are often the mechanisms that prevent participant breakdown, homelessness, hospitalisation, exploitation, and justice involvement. Participants with complex needs frequently rely on these supports to:

• navigate fragmented systems;
• engage with mainstream services;
• maintain tenancy and safety;
• coordinate mental health and clinical supports;
• build long-term capacity and independence. The Bill’s provisions enabling the Minister to determine funded support categories and planning frameworks through delegated legislation — combined with statements in the explanatory memorandum regarding NDIS cost containment — raise legitimate concerns that Support Coordination and Psychosocial Recovery Coaching may be restructured, restricted, or moved to a commissioned model outside individual plans. If this occurs without adequate transition planning and participant consultation, the consequences for people with complex needs will be severe and, in some cases, irreversible.

We recommend:

• preserving participant choice and control regarding coordination supports;

• recognising Specialist Support Coordination and Recovery Coaching as critical safeguarding functions;

• ensuring any redesign prioritises continuity of relationships and trauma-informed practice.

Submission 759

4

5. Cessation of Rollover Funds and the Risk of Overservicing The proposed legislative changes to cease the rollover of unspent funds at the end of a participant’s plan are likely to produce a significant unintended consequence: rather than reducing expenditure, the removal of rollover will create a strong incentive for both participants and providers to increase service delivery in the final weeks of a plan period in order to exhaust remaining funds. Far from improving efficiency, this change is likely to encourage overservicing — the provision of supports driven by budget consumption rather than genuine participant need. Incite Collective considers that this risk could be meaningfully addressed by differentiating the rollover treatment of funding categories. Not all NDIS funding carries the same risk profile or serves the same purpose. Core supports — which fund day-to-day assistance with daily activities, community participation, and consumables — are directly tied to fluctuating participant need and are the category most likely to carry legitimate unspent funds through no fault of the participant. Capacity building supports, by contrast, are time-limited and goal directed; unspent capacity funding at end of plan more commonly reflects planning or engagement issues that should be addressed through improved plan management rather than fund retention. We recommend:

• discontinuing rollover for Capacity Building funding, where time-limited goals make end-of-plan retention less appropriate;

• preserving rollover for Core funding, recognising that unspent Core funds often reflect genuine fluctuation in participant need rather than poor planning or wasteful expenditure;

• ensuring that any rollover policy explicitly guards against end-of-plan overservicing by monitoring utilisation patterns in the final months of plan periods.

6. Pace of Reform and Insufficient Consultation The timeframe for consultation on legislation of this scale is inadequate. Meaningful reform of the NDIS requires:

• genuine co-design with disabled people;

• engagement with frontline providers;

• piloting and evaluation before national implementation;

• staged transition planning. Rapid implementation risks unintended harm, particularly for participants with complex support needs who already experience systemic instability. We support calls for:

• extended consultation periods;

• publication of detailed operational models prior to implementation;

• transparent modelling regarding participant impact.

Submission 759

5

Recommendations

Incite Collective recommends that the Committee:

1. Strengthen safeguards around ministerial and delegated powers.

2. Strengthen safeguards on ministerial and delegated powers, requiring mandatory co-design, parliamentary scrutiny, and published impact assessments before significant rule changes take effect.

3. Ensure functional assessments are flexible, trauma-informed, and multidisciplinary, with explicit recognition of episodic and fluctuating disability and guaranteed appeal rights.

4. Protect participant access to supports funded at actual delivery cost, with pricing frameworks that account for complexity, specialist practice, and regional delivery.

5. Preserve participant choice and continuity in Support Coordination and Psychosocial Recovery Coaching, recognising these as critical safeguarding functions rather than administrative overheads.

6. Delay major reforms until genuine co-design and consultation are completed, with staged transition planning and published operational detail prior to implementation.

7. Differentiate rollover treatment by funding category, preserving rollover for Core funding while discontinuing it for Capacity Building funding, to avoid incentivising end-of-plan overservicing.

8. Ensure all reforms are assessed against Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD, particularly Article 19 (right to independent living and inclusion in the community) and Article 12 (equal recognition before the law and support in exercising legal capacity).

9. Invest in foundational and mainstream supports before restricting NDIS access pathways, so that alternatives are operational before participants are transitioned away from existing supports.

Conclusion

Incite Collective supports sustainable reform of the NDIS. However, sustainability cannot come at the expense of participant safety, autonomy, or equitable access. The NDIS exists to uphold the rights, dignity, and inclusion of people with disability. Reforms must strengthen those outcomes rather than narrowing access through administrative efficiency measures alone. We urge the Committee to ensure that any legislative changes remain grounded in:

• co-design,

• human rights,

• trauma-informed practice,

• participant choice and control,

• and evidence-based implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission, and we hope our recommendations are of assistance. Many thanks

  Kristin Penhaligon Director | Specialist Support Coordinator | Specialist Navigator