Impact of transport funding cuts on a vision-impaired woman (Participant experience)

Submission 803

Action for More

Independence & Dignity in Accommodation

First Floor, Ross House

247 Flinders Lane

Melbourne, VIC, 3000                        Inc No: A001608SV   ABN: 32 993 870

380 03 9654 2103 amida@amida.org.au www.amida.org.au

Advocacy, Self Advocacy, Rights, Accessibility, & Community Living for People with a Disability

SUBMISSION ON THE NATIONAL

DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

AMENDMENT

(SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE

GENERATIONS) BILL 2026

JUNE 2026

Action for More Independence and Dignity in Accommodation

(AMIDA)

amida@amida.org.au

Submission 803

Table of Contents

Contents …………………………………………………………….. Error! Bookmark not defined.

About AMIDA ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2

Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Consultation timelines …………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Schedule 1- Access and Planning Measures ……………………………………………………. 10 Part 2 - Limit unscheduled plan reassessments …………………………………………….. 10

Part 3 - Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support ………………… 12 Part 4 - Support Determinations …………………………………………………………………. 13

Part 5 – Plan renewal ……………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Part 6- Reasonable & Necessary Supports ……………………………………………………. 14 Part 8 — Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated ………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

Case Studies …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

Case Study 1- Unscheduled Plan Reviews/ Supports for Social/ Civic Community

Participation/ Safeguarding ………………………………………………………………………. 18

Case Study 2- Parental Responsibilities ………………………………………………………. 19 Case Study 3 – NDIS Access, “Permanence” Requirements, and Treatment Exhaustion Risks …………………………………………………………………………………….. 20 Case Study 4- Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support ………. 21

1

Submission 803

About AMIDA

Action for More Independence and Dignity in Accommodation (AMIDA) supports people with disability as valued members of our community. AMIDA recognises that people with disability contribute to and develop our community.

AMIDA is an independent advocacy organisation based in Melbourne, Victoria. AMIDA provides individual, family, self and systemic advocacy to uphold the rights of people with disability and promote choice control, dignity and inclusion. Its advocacy services include Housing Advocacy and NDIS Appeals Advocacy. AMIDA also undertakes systemic advocacy through policy engagement, submissions and sector collaboration to address barriers and inequities experienced by people with disability.

AMIDA, alongside Reinforce, Brain Injury Matters and Start Community Art, also manages the Self Advocacy Resource Unit (SARU). Through SARU, AMIDA supports self advocacy groups, leadership development, peer support and capacity building for people with an intellectual disability, a brain injury or complex communication needs. AMIDA also auspices groups and porjects such as Positive Powerful Parents, Voice at the Table and Raising our Voices. AMIDA’s work provides a strong foundation for understanding the experiences of people with disability and identifying systemic issues acecting their rights, inclusion, access to supports and human rights.

Executive Summary

AMIDA expresses serious concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. AMIDA is concerned that the government has not got this bill right. While reform of the NDIS is necessary, AMIDA considers that the Bill, in its current form, risks undermining the rights, safety and wellbeing of people with disability. The proposed changes increase the likelihood of isolation, neglect, exploitation, and even preventable deaths. These are not abstract fears; they are the predictable consequences of withdrawing essential supports from individuals who rely on them for safety, dignity, and daily functioning.

This Bill and associated reforms threaten to increase inequality and further structural disadvantage whereby only those with strong informal supports and the ability and resources to navigate complex systems will continue to access appropriate levels of support. In comparison, those with the most complex disabilities, the inability to advocate for themselves, lower levels of informal support and lower socio-economic status will fail to maintain the support they require. This is likely to place additional burden on essential public systems including hospitals, housing, child protection, education, justice and crisis support services. Additionally, the reforms as proposed will place additional pressure on already underfunded crisis and advocacy services.

2

Submission 803

Rather than reducing overall expenditure, the proposed reforms risk shifting costs onto systems that are not equipped to support people with complex disability needs.

Not only will undue pressure be transferred to alternate systems- this Bill also disproportionately acects women. Women will fill the gap that this Bill creates; they will shoulder the majority of unpaid caring and administrative support that will be needed to address the needs of participants when their support funding is cut, and their Support Coordinators can no longer ask for plan reassessments. This will not only necessitate some women to reduce their hours of employment but increase the risk of crisis escalation.

In its current form, this Bill lacks clarity and transparency. It is not accompanied by essential supporting materials such as draft rules or guidelines. Not legislating the detail means that future determinations/ conditions will no longer be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or public review. The removal of sunsetting clauses for indexations mean that funding changes or freezes may continue indefinitely without legislated ten-year review. This sets support determinations permanently with no mechanism for review. This is in contradiction of the rule of law that underpins democratic processes, ensures procedural fairness and allows avenues for redress.

3

Submission 803

Recommendations

AMIDA endorses all 44 recommendations made by People with Disability Australia (PWDA). [People with Disability Australia; Submission to the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill, May 2026]:

1. Recommendation 1 – Require reporting on the implementation of Foundational Supports prior to the commencement of parts of the Bill.

2. Recommendation 2 – Amend the timetable for Schedule 1, Parts 4 to 9 to require the Minister to table in Parliament an update comprising:

a. The status of Foundational Supports, including Thriving Kids, in all states and territories

b. A breakdown of levels of progress in each state and territory specifying whether the supports are funded, established and operational.

3. Recommendation 3 -The Australian Government publish detailed, transparent economic modelling to substantiate the projected $37 billion in cost savings over four years. This modelling should clearly articulate the assumptions, data sources, and counterfactual scenarios underpinning the analysis, including the anticipated impacts on individuals transitioning out of the NDIS. In particular, the Government must provide evidence on potential cost-shifting to State and Territory systems (such as health and social services).

4. Recommendation 4 – All substantive decisions acecting NDIS eligibility, participant supports, and funding levels be set out in primary legislation, ensuring they are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and disallowance processes, rather than determined through ministerial instruments.

5. Recommendation 5 – The introduction of mandatory transparency and consultation safeguards, including advance public release of proposed rule changes, meaningful engagement with people with disability and their representative organisations, and minimum notice periods to ensure participants are informed and able to prepare for any changes acecting their plans.

6. Recommendation 6 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 1, item 4 inserting section 9B to remove the requirement to assess functional capacity in the absence of supports, assistive technology, and environmental adjustments, and instead require that assessments reflect real-world conditions, including supports in use.

7. Recommendation 7 – Amend section 9B to require explicit recognition of psychosocial disability, episodic and fluctuating conditions, communication

4

Submission 803

needs, and environmental barriers, and mandate public release and independent evaluation of assessment methodologies and thresholds prior to implementation.

8. Recommendation 8 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 2, item 21 inserting section 48A to restore the ability for providers, advocates, and other authorised representatives to request reassessments on behalf of participants.

9. Recommendation 9 – Amend section 48A to include a risk-based reassessment pathway requiring the NDIA to initiate reassessment where there is evidence of risk of harm, homelessness, hospitalisation, carer breakdown, family violence, or loss of employment or education, and require interim supports during the 90-day decision period.

10. Recommendation 10 – In the proposed subsection 48A(1), after paragraph (d), insert: “(e) alternatively to (a)-(d), the participant demonstrates that:”

a. “the supports are no longer available; or” b. “the plan is insucicient to meet the participant’s reasonable and necessary support needs; or”

c. “new evidence relevant to the participant’s support needs has emerged.” 11. Recommendation 11 – Amend sections 32K, 32L and 34 to ensure that supports addressing secondary impacts, co-occurring conditions, and broader functional needs remain eligible, and that the definition of reasonable and necessary supports is not restricted solely to the primary qualifying impairment.

12. Recommendation 12 – Insert a provision clarifying that reasonable and necessary supports must continue to be determined on a holistic assessment of functional impact, not a narrow impairment-specific test.

13. Recommendation 13 – Remove Schedule 1, Part 4, item 34 inserting section 34A (Ministerial power to reduce funding for groups of supports).

14. Recommendation 14 – If section 34A is retained, amend it to require the Minister to be satisfied that any funding reduction will not create a material risk of harm, loss of independence, social isolation, institutionalisation, or reliance on informal care, and require publication of impact analysis and consultation outcomes prior to any determination.

15. Recommendation 15 – A support determination that is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding for a group of supports must be accompanied, at the time the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, by:

a. a statement of reasons for the determination 5

Submission 803

b. an assessment of the likely impact of the determination on participants, in particular those already experiencing negative impacts for example LGBTQIA+ and First Nations participants and those from CALD backgrounds

c. actuarial or financial analysis relied upon in making the determination; and

d. a summary of consultation undertaken with people with disability, and representative organisations.

16. Recommendation 16 – At a minimum, require that no cuts to SCCP supports occur until commensurate Foundational Supports are fully operational.

17. Recommendation 17 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 5, item 50 inserting section 50A to allow partial carryover of unspent funds where required for continuity of supports, contingency planning, or where underspend is reasonable.

18. Recommendation 18 – Amend section 50A to require participant consent, advance notice, and review rights where plan renewal results in reduced funding or changes to supports.

19. Recommendation 19 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 6 (including sections 17B and subsection 33(2EA) – (2EB) to ensure financial sustainability considerations cannot override participant safety, dignity, independence, employment, education, or community participation.

20. Recommendation 20 – Require that any Ministerial determinations setting maximum funding, intensity, or stacing ratios include mandatory exceptions where application would result in harm or reduced participation.

21. Recommendation 21 -Amend Schedule 1, Part 7 inserting section 40A and subsection 30(1A) to prohibit suspension or revocation based solely on inability to contact a participant where disability-related barriers exist.

22. Recommendation 22 – Require mandatory safeguards prior to suspension, including accessible communication, engagement with nominees or advocates, supported decision-making, and documented consideration of factors such as homelessness, hospitalisation, psychosocial disability, and communication barriers.

23. Recommendation 23 – Remove or substantially amend Schedule 1, Part 8 inserting section 25A (appropriate treatment requirement) to ensure that access is not contingent on exhaustion of all treatments.

24. Recommendation 24 – Amend section 25A to require that any treatment considered “appropriate” must be demonstrably accessible, acordable,

6

Submission 803

clinically suitable, culturally safe, and available within a reasonable timeframe for the individual.

25. Recommendation 25 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 9 inserting section 25B to ensure participants retain access to the NDIS where there is any delay, dispute, or gap in access to alternative systems.

26. Recommendation 26 – Insert provisions requiring interim NDIS supports while eligibility for other schemes is being determined, and remove requirements that applicants prove ineligibility for other systems prior to access.

27. Recommendation 27 – Amend Schedule 2 provisions relating to provider registration (including section 10C and amendments to section 73C) to require staged implementation, proportional compliance requirements, and exemptions or tailored pathways for small providers and thin markets.

28. Recommendation 28 – Require the Government to demonstrate and fund the capacity of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to ecectively monitor and enforce expanded registration requirements prior to rollout.

29. Recommendation 29 – Amend Schedule 2 compliance and enforcement provisions (including amendments to sections 53, 54, 56 and Part 3C) to include explicit safeguards limiting information-gathering powers and requiring proportionality, necessity, and disability-appropriate engagement.

30. Recommendation 30 – Amend section 45B to introduce flexible and accessible record-keeping requirements, including alternative forms of evidence and exemptions where participants are unable to comply due to disability.

31. Recommendation 31 – Insert safeguards to prevent automatic debt creation where records are missing, requiring NDIA to demonstrate misuse of funds before raising a debt.

32. Recommendation 32 – Amend section 45A to extend the claims period beyond 90 days or introduce discretion for late claims where delay is reasonable or unavoidable.

33. Recommendation 33 – Require exceptions for complex supports, administrative delays, and participant vulnerability to prevent non-payment for valid supports.

34. Recommendation 34 – Amend provisions relating to plan management commissioning (including amendments to sections 73C, 73E, 73F) to preserve participant choice by allowing access to non-panel providers where participants have an established relationship.

35. Recommendation 35 – Require transparent selection criteria, ongoing review of panel performance, and mechanisms for participant-driven choice outside the panel.

7

Submission 803

36. Recommendation 36 – Amend Schedule 3 provisions (including new sections 34B and related amendments) to require independent oversight of pricing decisions and limit Ministerial discretion.

37. Recommendation 37 – Legislate a requirement that pricing determinations must reflect evidence-based cost modelling and ensure market sustainability, with mandatory consultation and published rationale.

38. Recommendation 38 – Limit potential harm to participants by amending Schedule 3, Division 5 (including sections 59B–59E) to prohibit automated decision-making for any action that results in access refusal, funding reduction, suspension, revocation, or debt creation.

39. Recommendation 39 – Require mandatory human review prior to any adverse decision and ensure all automated decisions are subject to full merits review, including access to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

40. Recommendation 40 – Provide explicit legislative assurance that independent review through the ART will be retained and accessible with no erosion of procedural fairness or review rights.

41. Recommendation 41 -Delay full rollout until independent evaluation confirms the model does not reduce participant control, flexibility, or access to supports.

42. Recommendation 42 – Amend Schedule 4 provisions relating to new framework planning to require co-design with people with disability and mandate person-centred planning principles in legislation.

43. Recommendation 43 – Amend Schedule 5 transitional rule-making powers to remove or significantly limit the ability to modify the Act through rules.

44. Recommendation 44 – Require all rules that acect eligibility, funding, or supports to be subject to exposure draft consultation, impact analysis, and parliamentary disallowance for rules and instruments acecting eligibility, functional capacity, support reductions, funding methodology and alternative supports.

8

Submission 803

Consultation timelines

The short consultation period for the proposed legislative changes is deeply concerning. Under Article 4(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Australia is required to closely consult and actively involve persons with disability, through their representative organisations, in the development and implementation of legislation and policy acecting them. As outlined in the Joint Statement on 14 May 2026, Australia’s Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) are uniting in calling for a robust senate inquiry into the NDIS Reform Bill and a longer, more meaningful consultation period.

The proposed amendment document is highly complex and over 100 pages. Where consultation is conducted under severe time pressure and people with disabilities are required to respond to complex proposals without a genuine opportunity to do so, Article 4(3) is not being met in substance and is being undermined in practice. This equates to procedural exclusion and is a human rights violation. When people with disability are not enabled to participate meaningfully, legislation is more likely to narrow supports, overlook lived experience and shift individuals into mainstream systems that maybe inaccessible or unsafe. This increases the risk of adverse outcomes including reduced independence, family breakdown, child relinquishment, violence, homelessness, hospitalisation, segregation, and re-institutionalisation.

The Human Rights Commission has already flagged the potential for these reforms to infringe the human rights of people with a disability and that “we need to ensure that the human rights principles which underpinned the creation of the NDIS continue to shape its future.”

In its Final Report, the findings of the Disability Royal Commission stated that violence, abuse and neglect do not happen in isolation but are enabled by structural conditions including segregation, institutionalisation, weak safeguards and the failure to respect autonomy, lived experience, choice and control.

The reforms carry broad systemic risk. Changes in eligibility and social and community participation funding are timetabled to occur before alternative and foundational supports are in place. In practice, we are seeing children with disability already being removed from the scheme before foundational supports have been established, leaving them without the desperately needed early intervention therapies they require. This lack of access to supports now, will most likely result in them requiring additional and more intensive supports as they get older.

This is a significant gap in the reform plan, bypassing the considered implementation required to prevent any unintended consequences, especially straining other services that are already at capacity and increasing rates for family breakdown and homelessness.

9

Submission 803

Schedule 1- Access and Planning Measures

Part 2 - Limit unscheduled plan reassessments Part 2 tightens the criteria for unscheduled plan reassessments.

• Only participants, their plan nominee or guardian will be able to request an unscheduled plan reassessment.

• Unscheduled reassessments will only be possible when: o there have been significant and ongoing changes to a participant’s support needs arising from changes in their functional capacity o there has been an unanticipated, significant and ongoing change

Restriction on who can request an unscheduled plan reassessment has particularly serious consequences for people with significant cognitive or intellectual disability who do not have a plan nominee, family, or an informal support network to advocate on their behalf. By limiting reassessment requests to the participant, nominee, or guardian, the reform unintentionally creates a situation where some of the most vulnerable participants may be unable to trigger a reassessment at all, even when their needs change dramatically.

For individuals who cannot recognise or communicate changes in their own functional capacity, this could lead to long periods where their plan no longer meets their needs, placing their safety, health, and wellbeing at significant risk. If evidence is required to justify a reassessment but no authorised person can submit it, participants may become trapped in a bureaucratic stalemate, with deteriorating conditions but no mechanism to update their supports.

According to the NDIS Independent Pricing Committee Final Pricing Report: 2025, 46%

of participants have Support Coordination. This 46% represent NDIS participants who have the greatest need for assistance to understand, implement, and coordinate their supports due to the complexity of their disability or their service environment. It is provided to people with more complex needs and care team structures, or reduced informal supports, where additional help is required to make the plan work in practice. This rule will not only adversely acect people without nominees and guardians, it will disproportionally acect people/households who have low English literacy and people/households who are not online. Support Coordinators will have to spend more time and funding to prompt and direct participants, nominees and guardians to submit plan reassessment requests themselves.

This gap is likely to overwhelm the Ocice of the Public Advocate, as more people will require formal guardianship applications, a process that is slow and resource-intensive, solely to access a plan review. Without safeguards, these changes are dangerous and risk leaving isolated participants without a pathway to timely support adjustments.

10

Submission 803

Another source of uncertainty is the ambiguity surrounding the threshold for triggering an unscheduled reassessment. A review mechanism should enable the NDIS to intervene before a participant reaches crisis. The proposed threshold of “significant and ongoing” may be too restrictive, as many urgent changes in a participant’s circumstances cannot immediately be shown to be ongoing. Sudden breakdown of informal supports, family violence, provider withdrawal, housing instability, behavioural escalation, hospital discharge needs, or deterioration in mental health can create immediate risk even when the long-term impact is not yet clear and cannot be evidenced. If the threshold is drafted too narrowly there will be a gap between when support is needed and when the law permits reassessment, leaving participants on inadequate plans that no longer ensure their safety, dignity, or independence.

The phrase “significant and ongoing” may also impact early intervention participants. Participants should not be required to wait until a situation becomes entrenched before their plan can adapt. A rigid threshold for triggering unscheduled plan reviews shifts risk onto participants by requiring them to absorb the consequences of rapidly changing circumstances until those circumstances satisfy a high legal test. This approach is inconsistent with a participant-centred scheme.

Additionally, the reforms extend the period within which the NDIA must respond to a request for plan reassessment from 21 days to 90 days. Under the proposed legislation, a plan reassessment may only be requested where there has been either a significant change in the participant’s functional capacity or an unanticipated, significant and ongoing change to the participant’s living arrangements, education arrangements, employment arrangements, or informal support network.

A period of up to 90 days for determination of a plan reassessment may leave participants without adequate supports for a substantial length of time. In practice, this may result in participants being left without essential supports required to remain safe, live with dignity and maintain stable housing or employment. The resolution process for “deemed” decisions will also be removed. Should the Agency not respond to a Plan Reassessment Request within this period then there are no longer repercussions. This review period can continue indefinitely ecectively placing a “freeze” on requests.

The impact is particularly concerning where a decision is subsequently subject to external review, as participants may remain without appropriate supports for an extended period. Given that support needs can change rapidly, there is also a significant risk that, by the time an ART outcome is reached, the participant’s circumstances may have evolved to the point that the review outcome is no longer responsive to their needs.

11

Submission 803

Part 3 - Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support

Part 3 risks fundamentally missing the mark on what the NDIS is meant to do; understand and respond to people with disability in all their complexity.

The proposed changes in Part 3, which strengthen the requirement that supports must be directly linked to a participant’s recognised impairment, risk narrowing the NDIS’ ability to respond to the way disability is experienced in practice. While the intention of aligning funding with functional capacity is to improve consistency and focus on real world support needs, this must be understood alongside the increased emphasis on causal attribution between impairment and funded supports.

In practice, some functional needs can be clearly traced to identifiable impairments and causes; however, not all contributing conditions or drivers of disability are recognised or accepted by the Agency as independently eligible impairments. As a result, it is often the interaction between a recognised impairment and other non-recognised or secondary conditions that produces the actual functional need for support. A stricter requirement to attribute each functional need solely to a recognised impairment may therefore risk fragmenting this reality, leading to partial recognition of need where the combined ecect of multiple factors is not fully captured. Many participants experience comorbidity alongside a “primary” disability, the combined ecect is greater than the sum of individual impairments.

This concern is reflected in recent Federal Court authority, namely Eastham, which clarified that causation in the NDIS context should not be interpreted as requiring a single or exclusive impairment cause, but rather allows for contributing and interacting impairments to be considered in determining whether a support “arises from” an eligible impairment. There is a risk that if administrative practice or policy guidance adopts a narrower, more segmented interpretation than that endorsed by the Court, the reforms could prioritise administrative clarity over functional reality, reducing the system’s responsiveness to complex and interactive disability presentations, which are common.

Section 32K is a key part of how NDIS funding rules are set. Subsection (3A) requires that those rules properly account for how impairments can interact and how a person’s real world circumstances shape their support needs. Removing it would weaken this safeguard in the legislation. This risks complexity being overlooked in the funding

framework  itself, placing more pressure on individual assessments to capture  it.

Retaining s 32K(3A) would help ensure participants with complex or overlapping conditions are not disadvantaged by overly simplified funding rules.

12

Submission 803

Part 4 - Support Determinations

• Part 4 enables the Commonwealth Minister to make determinations to reduce funding for groups of supports.

• This will enable a Ministerial determination to reset participant support budgets for social, civic and community participation and capacity building daily activities.

The proposed legislation proposes the Commonwealth Minister for Disability to unilaterally determine reductions to funding for whole groups of supports. This raises serious concerns because it centralises power that is inconsistent with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). By enabling a Minister to reset or reduce budgets for social, civic, community participation and capacity-building supports, the reform moves the NDIS away from its foundational commitments to choice, control, inclusion, and individualised funding. Part 4 of this Bill reinforces a shift from a human rights model toward a medical and institutional model where people with disability are treated as a cost to be managed rather than as rights holders entitled to the supports necessary for full participation in community life.

The right to be included in the community is protected under Article 19 of the UNCRPD.

Social,  civic and community  participation supports  are not  luxuries;  they  are

fundamental to protecting participants safety, autonomy and human rights. Under this Bill, reductions to these supports risk leaving people unable to engage in basic community access. In some cases, participants may be required to share support simply to attend medical appointments, buy groceries, volunteer, study or work.

Capacity-building supports are equally essential. They enable people to develop skills, confidence and independence over time. These supports are directly linked to the ability of people with disability to live in the community rather than becoming isolated, segregated or entirely dependent on family carers. Reductions in these supports risk undermining long-term inclusion and participation, not merely short-term service levels. As recognised by the Disability Royal Commission, dependence and segregation puts people at risk of abuse, neglect, violence and exploitation.

No government or individual minister should hold such sweeping powers to restrict a group’s access to supports that are fundamental to daily life, autonomy, and equal participation. A more considered and deliberate approach is needed, as sweeping, top-down funding reductions could create long-lasting and irreversible impacts on people with disability; slowing the process and prioritising thoughtful, evidence-based decision-making is essential to avoid harming individuals who rely on these supports for basic daily living and full participation in the community.

13

Submission 803

Part 5 – Plan renewal Part 5 would introduce a legislated end date for all participant plans. When a participant reaches their plan reassessment date, this would become their plan end date, and a renewed plan would be created immediately after. Unspent funds from the previous plan would not be carried over to the renewed plan.

More concerningly, the Bill may retrospectively apply capped funding to stated supports in old framework plans. The Government has acknowledged that, in some cases, the cost of a support may exceed the amount allocated in a participant’s plan. This creates a risk of funding shortfalls, which may in turn result in the loss of essential supports and services.

Unspent funds should not be treated as proof that support was unnecessary. Underspending often reflects systemic barriers, rather than a reduced level of disability related need. A participant may underspend because they are unable to find suitable providers, live in a thin market, or face prolonged wait lists. Underspending may also arise

from support worker  cancellations,  participant  hospitalisation,  lack  of support

coordination, or circumstances arising from family violence or periods of homelessness. In other cases, delays in receiving equipment, home modifications, reports or approvals may also contribute to an underspend in their plan. Removing unspent funds in those circumstances punishes the participant for failures of the market or system.

The provision may also create poor incentives. If participants know that unspent funds will disappear, they may feel pressured to spend quickly before a plan ends. That does not promote responsible use of public money. It may encourage rushed spending rather than careful, needs-based use of supports.

The Bill should distinguish between underspending caused by lack of need and underspending caused by market failure or administrative delay. The NDIA should be required to consider why funds were unspent before refusing carry-over. Carry-over

should be  available where underspending was caused by  provider  shortages,

administrative delay,  hospitalisation,  rurality, delayed  assistive technology, home

modification  delays,  family  violence,  lack  of  support  coordination  or  other

circumstances outside the participant’s control.

Part 6- Reasonable & Necessary Supports

Part 6- The presumption that parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children.

Substantial care and support includes:

14

Submission 803

• supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support; and

• other assistance with the activities of daily living that, regardless of the child’s disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age.

This section fails to consider the already significant contribution that families and unpaid carers provide and represents further cost shifting on this burnt-out cohort. It also entrenches the ongoing reliance on unpaid care work, which is already a foundational but under-recognised component of disability support within NDIS. Complex disability presentations; those for which the Scheme aims to support; usually present with significant behavioural, physical and emotional needs that require 24/7 supervision. This can include severe physical and verbal aggression, property damage, absconding, PICA, faecal smearing, self-harm such as head-banging and overt sexual behaviours. The level of care and responsibility for these families is overwhelming.

This framework also creates a safeguarding gap, where families are expected to manage high-risk and complex behaviours without adequate clinical, behavioural, or crisis support to match the level of need.

Profound disabilities mean families are already providing substantial care above that of everyday parenting. Placing unsustainable burdens on families to manage supervision, personal care, behaviour, transport and emotional support will have huge lifelong repercussions. Repercussions will come in the form of familial breakdown, increased in-home assaults, increased diagnoses of post traumatic disorders for siblings and spouses, increased hospitalisations, increased relinquishments to state care, reduced workforce eciciency and output as carers are unable to participate in paid work, and generally poor mental health outcomes. This cost shifts to hospitals, police force and justice system, child protection, income benefit supports and the mental health system.

This also increases the risk of preventable escalation into crisis presentations, including emergency department admissions, family breakdown requiring statutory intervention, and avoidable entry into out-of-home care or restrictive environments where supports at home are no longer sustainable.

We anticipate further occurrence of murder-suicide ideation in families as supports continue to decline rapidly in the sector and families become more desperate seeing this as the only way out.

15

Submission 803

Part 8 — Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated

• Part 8 clarifies the definition of permanence in the Act, specifying that access will only be granted when:

• all appropriate treatment to remedy or alleviate an impairment has been undertaken

• no other treatment is likely to materially improve the impact of the impairment

• the impairment is likely to be lifelong.

• There will be an instrument to outline circumstances where a participant has accessed all appropriate treatment

Tightening of the definition of permanence creates significant risks because it assumes that all people can reasonably access, tolerate, and complete every appropriate treatment before they can be eligible for the NDIS. Without clearer safeguards, this provision risks turning NDIS access into a treatment-exhaustion test. In reality, this approach will exclude many prospective participants who have significant and ongoing disability support needs. In its ruling in Davis v NDIS, The Federal Court recognised that access cannot depend on a person undertaking every possible treatment when doing so is unreasonable, inaccessible, unacordable, or clinically inappropriate.

A treatment may exist in a clinical sense but still be inappropriate or inaccessible for a particular person. It may be unavailable in their region (with travel being physically or financially unfeasible), unacordable, subject to extensive waitlists or clinically risky. Additionally, treatments may be culturally unsafe, not trauma-informed, or otherwise inconsistent with the person’s circumstances. In other cases, an intervention may reduce symptoms without being likely to produce any meaningful improvement in functional capacity. If the law does not clearly recognise these limits, people may be denied access on the basis of treatment options that exist only in theory rather than in any realistic or reasonable sense.

This approach is particularly problematic for people with psychosocial disability, whose conditions may directly acect their ability to attend appointments, engage consistently in treatment, or tolerate particular interventions. Symptoms such as anxiety, paranoia, or depression can make regular attendance dicicult. Requiring treatment compliance as a precondition for access risks penalising people for the very nature of their disability. By insisting that all treatment options be exhausted before access is granted, the reform may exclude people who are unable—not unwilling—to engage, and could disproportionately disadvantage people in regional areas, those with limited financial means, and those living with complex psychosocial disability, ultimately undermining equitable access to the NDIS.

16

Submission 803

Conclusion

AMIDA requests that the Government substantially amend the NDIS Bill to preserve realistic functional assessment, urgent reassessment pathways, support for people with complex and fluctuating disabilities, and safeguards against broad funding reductions. The Bill must retain flexibility where underspending is caused by system failures, provide accessible communication before any suspension of supports, and ensure a clear no wrong-door approach where other service systems are delayed, disputed or inadequate. Reform should focus addressing systemic failures, not narrowing the supports that people with disability rely on to participate in everyday life.

This Bill fails to address or model the likely growth in costs across other social service systems resulting from disability-related cost shifting. These impacts are likely to be felt across mental health care systems, hospital systems, Out of Home Care, police services, family violence supports, carer supports and increased unemployment due to increase care demands in home.

Australia’s obligations under art 16 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities require State Parties to take all appropriate measures to protect persons with disability from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, including by ensuring that support services are designed to prevent and identify such abuse. A Bill that reduces formal support structures without adequately accounting for the risk that informal support environments pose to some participants and their care networks is dicicult to reconcile with that obligation.

For participants without any informal support network at all - the implicit assumption fails entirely on practical grounds. There is simply no one to absorb what the scheme no longer provides. The Bill does not appear to have modelled this cohort or identified what happens to them.

While restraining NDIS growth was foreseeable and necessary, this new Bill seeks to completely dismantle the hard-fought gains of Australia’s disability reforms, undermining the principles of choice, control, dignity, and inclusion that NDIS was designed to advance.

The Government must slow down, listen, and engage in genuine, sustained consultation with the disability community. Reforming the NDIS is important, but it must be done carefully, transparently, and in partnership with the people whose lives depend on it. Rushed reforms driven by cost-cutting rather than evidence will not create a safer or more sustainable scheme – it will create harm. A safe and sustainable NDIS requires co-design, lived-experience leadership, and a commitment to protecting the rights and wellbeing of people with disability. Anything less risks undermining the very purpose of the scheme.

17

Submission 803

Case Studies

Case Study 1- Unscheduled Plan Reviews/ Supports for Social/

Civic Community Participation/ Safeguarding

Sam is a 62 year old man living with an Acquired Brain Injury and suspected Parkinson’s disease, with no nominee and no informal supports. This means he is entirely dependent on paid stac to recognise when his needs are changing. Sam’s house supervisor initiated a plan review, a step Sam could never have taken himself due to his ABI and short-term memory.

Sam previously lived in DFFH housing, where he received high levels of 1:1 support to manage daily living. As his condition deteriorated, he moved into a purpose-built SDA home with shared SIL supports. However, this transition resulted in a substantial reduction in his individualised support, 1:1 funding and limited his ability to access the community activities he once enjoyed. Sam’s cognitive impairment, and particularly his capacity to sustain attention, short-term memory impairment and inability to hold on to information for even a minute or two meant that shared supports during activities simply did not meet his needs. The 1:3 SIL environment quickly became overwhelming, leading Sam to withdraw to his bedroom. Stac observed that he was becoming increasingly isolated and losing confidence.

The loss of 1:1 community access support had a profound impact, and restoring these supports became essential to maintaining Sam’s quality of life. When internal NDIS reviews for increased 1:1 support were declined, his team sought assistance from AMIDA for tribunal representation and proceeded to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). Sam was ultimately successful at the ART, enabling him to re-engage in activities that genuinely reflected his interests- poetry, bike-mending, barista training, and writing. Because these interests did not align with standard group-based NDIS programs, the Advocate had to clearly justify the need for individualised supports. Once approved, these tailored supports restored Sam’s structure, autonomy, and connection to the community on his own terms.

This case demonstrates the critical importance of others being able to initiate plan reviews for participants who lack cognitive capacity, informal supports, nominees, or guardians. A significant cohort of NDIS participants fall into this category, without a mechanism in place puts them at risk.

The case additionally highlights risks associated with limiting unscheduled plan reassessments. Although this plan review request did not appear “high risk”, without the mechanism for review, Sam would have been required to wait two years for his plan to expire before these needs could even be considered- years in which his condition

18

Submission 803

could have deteriorated, leaving him increasingly isolated and his quality of life deteriorating.

This case also highlights the systemic importance of adequate community access supports. Reducing 1:1 community participation hours does not simply limit choice- it isolates people, diminishes quality of life, and increases exposure to closed environments where risks of abuse, neglect, and exploitation are well-documented. Ensuring sucicient community access is therefore not only a matter of wellbeing but a fundamental safeguard for some of the most vulnerable participants in the scheme.

Case Study 2- Parental Responsibilities

John is a 14-year-old boy with Level 3 Autism Spectrum Disorder and Severe Intellectual Disability. He lives with his parents, siblings, and elderly grandparents. John’s developmental level is not comparable to that of other 14-year-old boys. He is non-verbal, has very limited communication, and experiences significant behaviours of concern, impaired safety awareness, and severe emotional dysregulation related to his disabilities.

John’s behaviours place him and others at ongoing risk. He displays aggression towards family members, wanders or absconds from home, engages in self-harm (including head-hitting and skin-picking), and frequently places dangerous non-food items in his mouth such as chemicals, dirt, raw meat, rubbish, and knives. He also engages in faecal smearing and unintentionally transfers faeces to objects, creating further health and safety risks. John lacks the functional capacity to complete any activities of daily living independently and requires full support across all domains.

John’s family are currently before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) to challenge an NDIS decision that limits his funded support to 56 hours per week, and 76 hours per week during school holidays, of 1:1 support. The NDIS is proposing parental responsibility for the majority of his care and have proposed 2 hours a day of supports.

For years, John’s parents have provided intensive, continuous care far beyond what could reasonably be expected of parents of a child and now a teenager his age. Their responsibilities include constant behavioural monitoring, overnight supervision, full assistance with all activities of daily living, and managing safety risks for John and his siblings. The cumulative impact has resulted in severe carer fatigue and a persistent risk of family breakdown.

This case illustrates the risks associated with the proposed subsection 34(1G) changes, which presume that parents are responsible for providing “substantial care” for their children. Their definition of substantial care: supervision, personal care, transport,

19

Submission 803

emotional support, behavioural support, and assistance with daily living tasks expected of parents of a similar aged child and teenagers does not reflect the reality of families supporting children with profound disabilities. Applying this standard to families like John’s imposes an unreasonable burden, forcing parents to leave the workforce and creating significant financial and emotional strain.

Case Study 3 – NDIS Access, “Permanence” Requirements, and

Treatment Exhaustion Risks

Jing is a 58-year-old man with long-standing psychosocial disability and multiple chronic physical health conditions. He has no nominee and has limited informal supports, meaning his ability to navigate complex systems, advocate for himself, or coordinate treatment is significantly constrained. His engagement with services is heavily dependent on intermittent periods of stability in his mental health.

Jing experiences severe anxiety and depressive episodes which substantially impact his functional capacity, particularly his ability to consistently attend appointments, maintain treatment, and manage daily living tasks independently. His condition is longstanding, fluctuating, and has not demonstrated sustained improvement despite previously engaging in a range of appropriate treatments. While some interventions have provided temporary or partial symptom relief, none have resulted in a meaningful or sustained improvement in his functional capacity. His physical health conditions further compound his impairment, by increasing fatigue, reduced mobility, and reduced ability to maintain routine engagement with services.

Under the proposed legislative framework, NDIS access would require that all appropriate treatment be undertaken and that no further treatment is likely to materially improve the impairment, and the impairment is likely to be lifelong. In Jing’s case, this framework creates a significant risk that his eligibility would be questioned on the basis that he has not exhausted every possible treatment pathway, even though that expectation does not reflect the realities of his disability or the barriers he faces in accessing care.

Jing’s psychosocial disability directly limits his capacity to engage in ongoing treatment. Anxiety and depressive episodes make consistent attendance dicicult, particularly without sustained supports, while geographic, financial and health-related barriers often interrupt his ability to remain engaged in structured treatment programs. As a result, his treatment history reflects the nature of his disability rather than a lack of willingness to engage. Importantly, while treatments may exist in a clinical sense, they have not demonstrated the ability to materially improve Jing’s functional impairment. The proposed reform risks treating theoretical options as though they were reasonable and accessible in practice.

20

Submission 803

This case highlights the risks associated with tightening the definition of permanence in a way that ecectively creates a “treatment-exhaustion test” for access to the NDIS. Thos approach inconsistent with the Federal Court ruling in Davis v NDIS, which requires consideration of whether treatment is reasonable, accessible, and clinically appropriate in a person’s actual circumstances, not simply whether it exists in theory. Requiring Jing to exhaust all treatment options would shift NDIS access away from functional impairment and towards treatment compliance, with broader risks of people with psychosocial disability, those who are regionally or financially disadvantaged.

For Jing, requiring full exhaustion of all treatment options would not reflect clinical reality and instead risks excluding a person whose disability itself prevents sustained engagement with the very interventions being required to establish eligibility. Ultimately, his case demonstrates that tightening the definition of permanence without adequate safeguards risks shifting the NDIS access framework away from functional impairment and toward treatment compliance, creating a significant barrier to equitable access for participants whose disability directly limits their ability to meet those expectations despite clear evidence of long-term and substantial functional impact.

Case Study 4- Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support

Zara is 40 years old and has complete vision loss. Her vision loss started from birth, and she became completely blind at the age of 6. Zara moved from Sudan to Australia when she was 7 with her family. Zara also has PTSD and experiences severe panic attacks and anxiety. Zara lives with her elderly mother, and they do not have any support from their extended family due to family violence. IVOs are in place due to this situation. Zara’s mother cannot drive as she never learnt to when she came to Australia.

Being in public as a blind person can be stressful, as she feels vulnerable and has been attacked before in public due to her race and visible disability. This fear is especially triggered on public transport, as there are a lot of people on trains and busses in a closed space, and increased chances of incidents. Being blind, public transport puts Zara in a situation where she can’t escape quickly or safely from situations that makes her feel unsafe. For this reason, due to the interaction between her vision impairment and PTSD, Zara must travel using taxis.

Zara runs her own IT company, which specialises in providing accessible IT solutions to people with disabilities. Zara works 25 hours a week in a hybrid arrangement between home and her ocice in a co-working space which is a 10-minute drive away in town

21

Submission 803

centre. In town centre she also does the following: attend a book club, prayer group, and go grocery shopping (shopping is done with a support worker).

Zara had level 3 transport funding in her NDIS plan with no issues for 5 years. Her routine was working perfectly and she was going to work, attending activities, and doing her shopping with ease. Suddenly in 2024, without anything changing in her life, Zara’s transport funding was cut to level 1 funding. When she requested an internal review of this decision, the decision was confirmed, saying: It is unclear from the evidence provided how this support relates to your disability which you have met access for with the NDIS. Your current listed disability is visual impairment.

Zara had submitted her psychologists and psychiatrists’ reports for many years and was not aware her PTSD was not recognised by Agency. She had never requested psychosocial supports through the NDIS, as she was seeing her psychologist with Medicare rebates and medicated through her GP.

By the time Zara engaged with advocacy for representation at the ART, she was extremely distressed and explained she was now completely isolated and stuck at home. She began using her savings for transport to and from work, but now was just working from home (with limited success), as she couldn’t acord to keep doing this. She had to cut down on her hours, which meant saying no to new clients and generating new business. She hasn’t attended book club or prayer meetings in weeks, and doesn’t get to see her friends. She is using her transport to go grocery shopping, as she does not like to use Coles delivery options, as their website is not vision-loss friendly and takes hours to complete an order using a screen reader.

At the ART during ADR, the solicitors were extremely adversarial, and Zara was intimidated, even with an advocate supporting. She felt “like a criminal” being accused of making false claims and her severe anxiety was triggered. Zara and the advocate were told that we would not be able to ask for a new diagnosis to be recognised by Agency as this case related only to requested supports. The advocate argued that this was an attribution matter. The Agency then agreed to give targeted questions. The client felt so upset by the aggressive manner of the solicitor and the number of invasive questions from the Agency (more than 50), that she decided to withdraw from proceedings due to proceedings taking such a toll on her mental health. Today, Zara remains with level 1 transport funding, resulting in reduced work/earning capacity, withdrawal from community participation, increased isolation, and a substantial deterioration in her independence and overall wellbeing.

NOTE: The above cases have been de-identified and are based on real cases AMIDA advocates have worked on.

22