Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission

Ph 1800 033 660 | E bca@bca.org.au | W bca.org.au | ABN 90 006 985 226

National 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

1. 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.

2. 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 It should be withdrawn in its entirety, and any future reform of the Scheme should be developed from first principles, in genuine partnership with people with disability.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

Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission

legal expertise have described this provision as providing the moral and human

ights 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.”

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

general 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

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.

5. 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

ability 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

ability, and any rules made under it, be co-designed with the blindness and vision impaired sector before commencement.

Submission 839 - Supplementary Submission

6. 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 proportionately 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.

7. 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.

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
  

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

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.

10. 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 nsupport, Braille instruction and the like to participants who are blind or vision nimpaired. 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

• 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.

11. 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.

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,

t 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.

12. 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 an 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 cannot 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.

• 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.

13. 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.

14. 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,

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

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