Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
Ph 1800 033 660 | E bca@bca.org.au | W bca.org.au | ABN 90 006 985 226National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Supplementary Submission
10 July 2026
This document is a supplementary submission to Blind Citizens Australia’s
original submission to this inquiry dated 1 June 2026 (Submission 839).
Submitted online via: Lodge my submission – Parliament of Australia
Submitted by Melanie Chatfield, National Policy Officer
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 1 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
- Introduction and purpose Blind Citizens Australia (BCA) lodged a submission to this inquiry on 1 June
2026, containing thirteen recommendations concerning the impact of the National
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill) on people who are blind or vision impaired.
Since then, further material has become available, prompting this supplementary
submission. This submission doesn’t repeat BCA’s original submission. Instead,
it highlights the significance of several legal, structural and practical mechanisms
in the Bill for people who are blind or vision impaired, informed by that further
material, and cross-refers to the relevant recommendations in BCA’s original
submission.
- The repeal of section 31 and BCA’s position that the Bill should not proceed
BCA’s starting point, consistent with the Executive Summary of its original 1 June
2026 submission, is that this Bill is not a technical or administrative update to the
National Disability Insurance Scheme, but a reversal of the original intent of the
Scheme. BCA’s original submission stated that the reforms prioritise cost
containment over disability outcomes, shifting the NDIS away from its rights
based foundations toward a more restrictive and budget-limited system, and
called on government to restore the NDIS to its original intent as a rights-based,
participant-centred scheme that enables people with disability to live safely,
independently and inclusively in the community. BCA now states this position in
unequivocal terms. The Bill should not be passed. It should be withdrawn in its
entirety, and any future reform of the Scheme should be developed from first
principles, in genuine partnership with people with disability.
BCA’s position is founded on two matters in particular. The first is the proposed
repeal of section 31 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.
Section 31 currently requires that participant plans be built around individual
circumstances, goals and support needs, and other submitters to this inquiry with
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 2 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
legal expertise have described this provision as providing the moral and human
rights underpinning of the Scheme. Its repeal would remove from the Act the very
foundation on which every recommendation in BCA’s original submission
depends, being that supports must be responsive to the individual, and not
allocated according to a class, category or group. BCA considers the repeal of
section 31 is likely to lead to a system with characteristics akin to a pre-2013
model of block funded supports, of the kind the NDIS was created to replace.
The second is the unacceptably broad range of powers the Bill would confer on
the Minister, often without parliamentary scrutiny or merits review. In particular,
the removal of review provisions is a fundamental attack on the rule of law in
Australia. These include the power to reduce funding for any specified group of
supports by up to 99 per cent (proposed section 34A), the power to alter a
participant’s plan on renewal in a manner deemed not to be a reviewable
decision (proposed section 50A), the power to narrow the definition of functional
capacity (proposed section 9B), the power to determine when a person is taken
to have received appropriate treatment (proposed section 25A), the power to
authorise and govern automated administrative decision-making (proposed
sections 59B to 59E), and the power to determine who is and is not an NDIS
provider (proposed section 10C). By way of absolute clarity, BCA opposes any
amendment to the legislation that removes the review of a decision of
government by the Administrative Review Tribunal and considers this safeguard
essential to maintaining the rule of law and safeguards for people with
disabilities. BCA is further concerned that the Bill would confer a transitional
power allowing the Minister to modify the text of the Act itself for a period of up to
two years, in relation to any matter of a transitional nature connected with the
Bill’s changes. Taken together, BCA considers these powers transfer control over
the fundamental character of the Scheme from the Parliament to a single
Minister, leaving people who are blind or vision impaired, and all NDIS
participants, exposed to significant changes in their support with no guaranteed
right to be heard.
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 3 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
Should the Parliament nonetheless decide to proceed with the Bill, BCA
recommends that it give priority consideration to suggested reforms set out in the
remainder of this submission.
- The Ministerial power to reduce funding for groups of supports The Bill would insert a power, at proposed section 34A, allowing the Minister, by
legislative instrument, to reduce funding for a specified group of supports,
reported elsewhere in evidence to this inquiry as permitting a reduction of up to
99 per cent, without this being a decision that is reviewable by an individual
participant. BCA’s original submission, at Recommendations 3 and 4, already
identified a significant issue for participants who are blind or vision impaired,
namely the announced reduction to Social, Civic and Community Participation
(SCCP) funding, originally stated to occur from 1 October 2026.
The government’s own Impact Analysis report1 explicitly identifies participants
with a primary disability of vision impairment as one of the cohorts expected to be
more affected by reductions to SCCP funding given that participants with vision
impairment have a relatively high proportion of their plan allocated to SCCP
supports compared with many other disability groups. It states: “participants with
a primary disability of visual impairment, Down syndrome, and Intellectual
Disability may be more affected by this change.“
BCA reiterates that this category of support is not a discretionary or lifestyle
expense for participants who are blind or vision impaired. It funds orientation and
mobility assistance by a support worker, safe travel, support to attend medical
appointments, assistance to manage inaccessible information and forms, and
support to participate in family, community and civic life.
A power to reduce this category of funding by legislative instrument, without
individual consideration of impact and without a right of review, will mean that
people who are blind and vision impaired will, in many instances, lose vital
1 Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, National Disability Insurance Scheme Reforms: Impact
Analysis (Office of Impact Analysis, May 2026) pg58-60.
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 4 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
access to their communities and significantly compromise their ability to lead
fulfilling and productive lives. Evidence of this can be found in the case studies in
BCA’s 1 June submission and in section 14 of this submission.
Similarly, the Improved Daily Living Skills category contains many of the
specialist capacity-building supports relied upon by people who are blind or
vision impaired, including orientation and mobility training, assistive technology
training, vision impaired rehabilitation and other interventions designed to
maximise independence. While these supports are often characterised as
capacity-building services, their use differs in important ways from some other
forms of therapy in which a time-limited intervention is provided with an
expectation that support will no longer be required. For many people who are
blind or vision impaired, the need for vision-related capacity-building supports
routinely changes throughout a person’s life. For example:
-
a participant who moves house may require orientation and mobility training to learn new routes to public transport, local services and community facilities;
-
a participant whose vision deteriorates may require further rehabilitation, technology training or orientation and mobility support to continue undertaking
tasks they were previously able to perform independently;
- changes in employment, study or community participation may create entirely new support requirements that were not previously present.
The proposed s 34A allows other important categories of support to be cut
unilaterally with no right of review and BCA strongly opposes this executive
overreach.
- Non-reviewable plan alterations on renewal The Bill would also introduce a mechanism, at proposed section 50A and
described in evidence to this inquiry as a successor plan provision, under which
the Minister may determine alterations to a participant’s plan at the point of
renewal, including the removal of supports, with such alterations deemed at law
not to be a reviewable decision. BCA notes that transitional item 58 of Schedule
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 5 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
1 to the Bill would allow plans that would otherwise end after 1 October 2027 to
be ended early, which has the effect of bringing forward the point at which the
section 50A renewal alteration power applies to a given participant. BCA did not
address this specific mechanism in its original submission. BCA now raises it as
a matter of direct relevance to Recommendation 3 and Recommendation 12 of
that submission, both of which call for strong legislative safeguards, independent
oversight and preserved review rights. BCA submits that all decisions that are
currently reviewable under the present legislation should remain reviewable
decisions. Consistent with this position, any alteration to a participant’s plan on
renewal that reduces funding or removes a support should remain a reviewable
decision.
- The narrowed definition of functional capacity BCA’s original submission, at Recommendation 1, raised concern that functional
capacity assessments must reflect real-world conditions and must not assume
independence based on flawed understandings of blindness and vision
impairment. BCA has since become aware that the Bill’s definition of functional
capacity, at proposed section 9B, is drafted to exclude, as far as possible, the
impact of a person’s environmental and personal circumstances. BCA considers
this drafting approach confirms, at the level of the Bill’s text, the precise risk that
BCA’s original submission was seeking to guard against.
Functional capacity for a person who is blind or vision impaired cannot be
meaningfully separated from the accessibility of the environment in which that
capacity is being exercised. A person may appear to manage a task
independently in a controlled assessment setting while being unable to safely or
reliably perform the same task in an inaccessible public environment, for
example navigating a crowded street, using an inaccessible digital interface, or
reading printed material with no alternative format available. BCA reiterates
Recommendation 1 in full and recommends that the definition of functional
capacity, and any rules made under it, be co-designed with the blindness and
vision impaired sector before commencement.
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 6 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
- The permanence and appropriate treatment test BCA’s original submission, at Recommendation 8 and Recommendation 9,
opposed any requirement that a participant exhaust all appropriate treatment
before accessing the NDIS where that treatment cannot restore functional vision,
and called for explicit recognition that permanent vision impairment does not
require repeated proof of permanence. BCA reiterates that point, particularly in
instances where a person who is blind or vision impaired has either no sight, or
their level of vision remains stable and/or cannot be cured. BCA notes that other
submitters to this inquiry with legal expertise have separately raised concern that
the Bill’s appropriate treatment and permanence provisions, at proposed Part 8
to Schedule 1 of the Bill, do not account for treatment being unavailable to a
person because of cost, distance or service availability, and that this will
disproportionately affect people in regional and remote areas and those facing
existing barriers to specialist healthcare access.
This general concern has direct relevance to participants who are blind or vision
impaired. Many causative eye conditions, including diabetic retinopathy,
glaucoma and retinitis pigmentosa, require ongoing management by an
ophthalmologist, a specialist workforce that is unevenly distributed across
Australia. A permanence test that disregards a person’s practical ability to access
such specialists risks excluding or delaying access for people who are blind or
vision impaired, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas, compounding the
general access barriers already identified by other submitters. BCA is of the view
that the proposed Part 8 should be rejected from the final Bill, consistent with
Recommendations 8 and 9 of BCA’s original submission.
- Plan review Currently NDIS participants can request a plan review at any time during their
plan should their circumstances change. The proposed section 48A unacceptably
narrows this right to request a review to circumstances where there has been a
significant change in the participant’s ongoing support needs. The significant
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 7 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
change which can trigger a review is tightly defined and must be either or both of
the following:
Related to a person’s functional capacity, which means changes directly
related to an impairment which meets the access criteria and causes a
substantial reduction in the person’s ability to perform daily activities;
and/or
An unanticipated, significant and ongoing alteration in a participant’s living,
education or work arrangements, or their network for informal support.
These circumstances are too restrictive because they risk leaving a person
without adequate support, in circumstances beyond their control. An example of
this could occur, for instance, in relation to a dog guide user whose dog suddenly
cannot work due to illness. It is not clear that this scenario, and the possible need
to replace the dog, would trigger a plan review.
Other scenarios may include:
A participant’s primary screen reader, Braille display, CCTV, or other
assistive technology may fail unexpectedly, become obsolete or no longer
be compatible with essential software. The participant’s vision has not
changed, nor have their living arrangements, but their existing plan may
no longer provide sufficient funding to replace or upgrade essential
technology.
Major changes to the participant’s external environmental that impact on
safety and access such as major changes to public transport systems,
streetscapes, roadworks, pedestrian crossings or other public
infrastructure would require refresher and/or intensive orientation and
mobility training to maintain safe and independent travel.
A participant who is blind or vision impaired becomes the primary carer for
a child or an ageing parent following the parent’s illness or loss of
independence. The participant may need additional orientation and
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 8 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
mobility support, or assistive technology to safely manage their own needs
and their caring responsibilities.
BCA recommends that the right of a participant to request a plan review be
broadened to include circumstances where the plan no longer meets the
participant’s support needs.
- Plan suspension for non-contact BCA’s original submission, at Recommendation 7, addressed the risk that
participants who are blind or vision impaired may be incorrectly treated as
uncontactable where the National Disability Insurance Agency has not provided
communications in an accessible format, and gave a direct example of a member
being sent inaccessible printed correspondence despite repeated requests for an
alternative format. BCA notes that this concern is not unique to participants who
are blind or vision impaired and has been raised in general terms by other
submitters as a natural justice and procedural fairness issue affecting the
fairness of any suspension decision based on non-response.
BCA considers that this convergence strengthens the case for the safeguards
proposed in Recommendation 7 of its original submission. A general procedural
fairness safeguard requiring accessible communication before any suspension
decision would benefit all participants who face communication barriers, and
BCA recommends that the Committee treat this as a priority amendment
applicable across the Bill, not only to provisions specifically targeted at any one
cohort.
- Automated decision-making The Bill would expand the National Disability Insurance Agency’s power to make
administrative decisions by automated means, at proposed sections 59B to 59E,
including decisions involving the exercise of a discretion or the forming of an
opinion. BCA’s original submission did not directly address automated decision
making, though Recommendation 5 called for accessibility to be embedded by
default across all Agency systems and communications. BCA now raises
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 9 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
automated decision-making as a matter warranting particular caution for
participants who are blind or vision impaired. Blindness and vision impairment is
a low incidence disability which is often not well understood and highly
susceptible to bias and incorrect assumptions. Vision impairment is a disability
which by its nature is highly variable in its degree and individual affect.
Automated decision-making based on machine learned artificial intelligence,
simplified rules or data models cannot hope to accurately portray the varieties of
vision impairments, and environmental and individual factors in a way which will
accurately measure the functional capacity of a person who is blind or vision
impaired.
An automated system risks embedding incorrect assumptions into a participant’s
record, allowing them to cascade throughout decision making. The result is not
simply one incorrect decision, but a series of decisions founded on the same
flawed premise.
Further, if automated decision-making is applied in these circumstances, the
person seeking to challenge an adverse decision is in an extremely
disadvantaged position in ascertaining how automated decision-making has been
applied to them and in mounting a successful challenge to an incorrect decision.
- Provider regulation and the specialist blindness workforce BCA’s original submission, at Recommendation 11, raised concern that
expanded provider regulation and civil penalty provisions could have unintended
consequences for the small, highly specialised and geographically dispersed
workforce that delivers orientation and mobility training, assistive technology
support, Braille instruction and the like to participants who are blind or vision
impaired. BCA supports concerns raised by other submitters about the effect of
an increased regulatory and compliance burden on small and sole trader
providers generally, and the resulting risk of market consolidation toward larger
providers. BCA supports efforts to eliminate fraud and waste within the scheme
but is of the view that alternatives to registration as a provider could be
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 10 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
considered for bespoke professionals servicing thin markets such as the blind
and vision impaired community. BCA notes in particular that proposed section
10C would allow the Minister to determine who is, and who is not, an NDIS
provider, powers which BCA considers could be detrimentally applied in ways
that affect the small and specialist organisations that make up much of the
blindness-specific service sector.
BCA considers that a shift toward larger, more centralised providers would be felt
particularly acutely in the blindness-specific service sector, given its reliance on
sole practitioners and small specialist organisations, particularly outside
metropolitan areas. BCA reiterates Recommendation 11 of its original
submission and recommends that any new registration framework include a
proportionate, risk-based pathway and transitional support specifically designed
to retain this specialist workforce within the Scheme.
- Impact of support determinations on supported accommodation.
Further to previous comments regarding proposed s 34A, BCA is concerned that
the Minister’s power to set caps, limits or ratios on categories of supports through
determinations could affect staffing arrangements and reduce staff-to-participant
ratios in supported accommodation settings.
For people who are blind or vision impaired, support needs cannot be safely or
appropriately determined through standardised staffing ratios. The level of
support required depends on a person’s individual circumstances and is highly
dependent on the environment in which they live. For example, two residents
may both be blind but have very different support needs. One person may
navigate independently with a dog guide and have additional physical disabilities
which dramatically decrease independence, while another may have additional
cognitive impairment or hearing loss.
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 11 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
A staffing model that is appropriate in one supported accommodation setting may
be inadequate in another because of differences in building layout, accessibility,
transport access, emergency evacuation requirements and the availability of
accessible information.
Support determinations should not result in funding reductions that require
providers of supported accommodation to adopt standardised staffing models,
reduce individually assessed supports, or put participant wellbeing and safety at
risk.
- Summary of supplementary recommendations Supplementary Recommendation 1: Any power to reduce funding for a group
of supports, including the proposed reduction to Social, Civic and Community
Participation funding and Daily Living, represents executive overreach and
should be opposed by the Parliament.
Supplementary Recommendation 2: All decisions currently reviewable within
the existing legislative framework should remain reviewable decisions, in
particular, Any alteration to a participant’s plan on renewal that reduces
funding or removes a support should remain a reviewable decision.
Supplementary Recommendation 3: The definition of functional capacity, and
any rules made under it, should be co-designed with the blindness and vision
impaired sector before commencement, consistent with Recommendation 1
of BCA’s original submission.
Supplementary Recommendation 4: Proposed Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the Bill
should be removed from the final Bill.
Supplementary Recommendation 5: the circumstances in which a plan review
can be requested should be widened to include circumstances where the plan
no longer meets a participant’s support needs.
Supplementary Recommendation 6: Accessible communication safeguards
prior to any plan suspension decision should apply as a general safeguard
across the Bill, consistent with Recommendation 7 of BCA’s original
submission.
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 12 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
Supplementary Recommendation 7: Any expansion of automated decision
making should include a mandatory requirement for human review of
decisions.
Supplementary Recommendation 8: Any new provider registration framework
should include a proportionate, risk-based pathway and transitional support
for small and specialist providers, including the blindness-specific workforce,
consistent with Recommendation 11 of BCA’s original submission.
Supplementary Recommendation 9: Ensure that support determinations
cannot reduce funding in a way that undermines the provision of individually
assessed supports or compromises the safety, independence or wellbeing of
participants living in supported accommodation settings.
- Conclusion BCA supports the objective of a sustainable National Disability Insurance
Scheme. However, the current bill is not the path toward sustainability. Instead,
sustainability should be achieved by eliminating waste and reducing fraud within
the scheme. BCA urges the Committee to consider these matters together with
BCA’s original thirteen recommendations and would welcome the opportunity to
provide further information or to give oral evidence to the Committee at a hearing
in Canberra, ACT.
- Lived Experience Insights Case 1 – Why NDIS supports matter to the independence and safety of a
person who is blind
NDIS SCCP supports are what makes independent participation possible. I use
this funding to attend a museum or art gallery with a support worker who can
assist with safely navigating unfamiliar environments, locating accessible
information and describing exhibits that cannot be independently accessed. The
same funding enables everyday activities such as shopping, where a support
worker can describe available products when preferred items are unavailable, or
attending medical appointments in unfamiliar locations, assisting with navigation,
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 13 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
reading inaccessible signage and completing paperwork privately. Without these
supports, many ordinary activities become inaccessible, unsafe or require
reliance on family and friends rather than enabling genuine independence and
community participation.
Case 2 - What it means to be a person with a vision impairment living in a
regional city
Clare is legally blind due to Retinitis Pigmentosa and lives in Karratha,
approximately 1,530 kilometres from Perth. Clare’s partner frequently works long
hours and is away as a FIFO worker so is not available for informal supports.
Clare has no family in the region and only a few people that she knows.
There are no local specialist blindness services locally, so she must travel to
Perth to access essential supports, including ophthalmology appointments,
orientation and mobility training, and assistive technology assessment and
training. A typical return flight costs between $900 and $1,200, in addition to
accommodation and other travel expenses.
Clare requires disability-related support to access healthcare settings as
environments are often inaccessible, with confusing layouts, inaccessible
signage and information, and staff who are not trained to assist people who are
blind or vision impaired. Without appropriate supports, attending appointments is
stressful, unsafe and compromises privacy and independence.
The proposed reforms risk compounding these barriers. If support determinations
reduce funding or participants are required to have sought or undertaken
treatment that is unavailable or unreasonable to access, people living in regional
and remote Australia will lose access to the specialist blindness supports they
need to live independently.
Case 3 – Why human oversight matters
Sharon is blind and relies on the NDIS to access assistive technology and other
supports that enable her to work and live independently. Throughout her
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 14 of 15
Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission
experience with the Scheme, she has encountered repeated decisions based on
incorrect assumptions about blindness. It took more than 12 months to secure
funding for a 40-cell Braille display because decision-makers assumed it was
sufficient for her to continue use of inadequate equipment that was equivalent to
reading one word at a time on a mobile phone screen. They did not understand
that a full-size Braille display is essential for efficiently using a computer. She has
also experienced significant inconsistencies between plans and is worried about
not being able to identify or correct misunderstandings until after a plan has been
approved. She is particularly concerned about automated decision-making, and
the risk that the system is built on incorrect assumptions about blindness or
inaccurate information recorded during an earlier planning process, and that
these errors may be repeated and reinforced in future decisions, making it more
difficult to obtain essential supports and forcing participants to repeatedly
challenge decisions to access low-cost, well-established assistive technology
and other reasonable and necessary supports.
Blind Citizens Australia I Page 15 of 15