Submission 847
27 May 2026
To: Committee Secretary, Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Re: Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS
for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am writing this submission because the National Disability Insurance Scheme is very important to me, and for many people I care about. This submission was written in my own words.
I have been active in the Disability community and sector for over 21 years, and involved in the NDIS since inception (13 years) in various ways:
● As a disability support worker with a NDIS registered provider
● As a Support Coordinator / Specialist Support Coordinator
● As a trainer, consultant and coach for NDIS Professionals ● As a family member and friend of Participants in the Scheme ● As a friend of people with disabilities who do not access the Scheme ● As a person with a disability who does not access the Scheme ● As an Australian tax payer who contributes towards Scheme costs ● As a proud Australian passionate about giving everyone a chance to live, not just survive
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is essential to Australians. The Scheme needs to be sustainable. The Scheme is not working in some areas and needs reform. But it also needs to not cause unnecessary harm or remove human rights.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026 - proposes unsafe and concerning amendments to the NDIS Act.
As someone who has personally read all of the 402 pages in the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum (twice), I am extremely concerned that this Bill will be voted on by the Senate without voters having read and fully understood each section and the implications of the Bill.
The Bill proposes many changes that do not align with the Objects and Principles of the Act, our country’s obligations under the UN-CRPD, or with the original intent of the Scheme.
It delegates expanded powers to the NDIS Minister to make arbitrary decisions with very little or nil oversight, and creates a “shell” of an Act, where the majority of big changes would be decided “later” through other legislative instruments [Rules & Determinations].
This proposed Bill will harm people. It will harm disabled Australians and their families. It will harm working Australians and unpaid carers. It will segregate and isolate the most vulnerable in our society. It will silence people.
It will also harm service providers who value quality over quantity, humans over paychecks. The ones who safeguard, care, are not willing to cut corners to make a profit.
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 1
Submission 847
My overarching recommendations
1. Withdraw this Bill and reconnect with the community to work together to rebuild the National Disability Insurance Scheme to deliver on outcomes for current and future generations of Australians with a rights based, clear, structured and sensible reform. Incorporate learnings from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Align all proposed changes with the UN-CRPD.
2. If not withdrawn, this Bill requires extensive consultation, input and amendments. Extend the timeframe for Inquiry submissions. Extend the Senate Committee report due date. Distribute accessible information to the wider community. Hold hearings and ensure accessibility for all individuals to have their voice heard.
Amendments required
Below is a list of the major concerns I have after analysing the proposed amendments, and considering the operational and practical repercussions. I have also considered the human element, and human rights under the UN-CRPD, which cannot be forgotten amongst the loud “financial sustainability and fraud / rorting” headlines.
Due to the limited time available to make Senate Inquiry submissions, this response cannot address every detail and every concern that I have. The below is a sampling only.
1. Timeframes
● The Bill proposes legislated timeframes to increase from 21 days to 90 days for scheme access application decisions and deciding to accept a reassessment request. This contradicts the Participant Service Guarantee and causes unnecessary and significant delays & risks for both scheme access and plan reassessment applicants.
Recommend: Retain the existing 21 day timeframe for s20(2)(a) and s48(3).
2. Review rights
● The Bill proposes to remove review & appeal rights for plan renewals by making them an operation of law rather than a delegate decision.
● The Bill proposes to remove review and appeal rights when the Agency doesn’t make a decision to accept/decline a plan reassessment within the [was 21 days] 90 day timeframe. If the Agency doesn’t provide a written decision, it is not reviewable. This incentivises the Agency to not uphold timeframes or make a decision.
● The Bill proposes to apply reassessment changes to applications already awaiting outcomes prior to new Act amendments. This could mean that the approx 30,000
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 2
Submission 847
outstanding plan reassessment requests are cancelled / wiped by the Agency not ever making a decision on them, with no enforceable way to seek an outcome.
● The Bill proposes to introduce a Ministerial function to reduce participant budget spending via a “support determination” which would not be a reviewable decision.
Recommend: Do not repeal s48(4) - keep as a deemed decision - and maintain it as a reviewable decision under s99(1) (table item 6C, column 2) and s100(1A)(a)(ii).
3. Reasonable & Necessary supports
● The Bill proposes support must arise “directly” from impairments accepted as meeting the disability criteria / access threshold.
● It removes the broader “whole-of-person” considerations and conditions/impairments that interact with each other, or that are influenced by the person’s personal or environmental factors. Impairments don’t arise in silo and cannot be neatly split up.
● “Value for money” s34(1)(1A) proposes a larger emphasis on the cost than benefit when determining value for money. A support is not comparable if it does not achieve a similar successful outcome; value for money decisions must add value, not just save money.
● “Effective and beneficial” s34(1)(1E) proposes the creation of a hierarchy of importance when considering evidence that something will be effective and beneficial. Demonstrated, proven beneficial outcomes for individual participants will not be considered if the delegate is not satisfied there is sufficient published or generalised research available, which may not be applicable to the individual or their circumstances.
● “Family etc support - children” s34(1)(1G) proposes the presumption that parents are “responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children.” The use of the language “substantial” creates issues when demonstrating a child or young person’s functional capacity and substantial impact their impairment has on day to day life. There is limited scope to identify where the “line” would be crossing over from general responsibilities of parents and additional (substantial) disability related support.
● s34(1)(1H)(a) describes this as including “supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support; and (b) 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.”
● There is no definition of what would “reasonably be expected” in sub(b), and in the case of sub(a), how to separate reasonable expectations less than full care and support for “supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support”.
● There is no indication of how the behavioural support needs or showering or supervision levels of a child of 9 would be addressed differently to a child of 14.
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 3
Submission 847
● s34(1)(1J)(b) would prohibit a delegate from deeming a support R&N if a primary or substantial reason for support is to “improve household efficiency”. Is this proposed to remove the capacity to fund services to “sustain informal supports”? All support in a child’s plan would aim to improve “household efficiency”. This requires a reword.
Recommend: Remove “directly” and maintain the existing wording in s34(aa). Reinstate s34 (aa) note (b) allowing for an individual’s personal and environmental factors to be considered along with the interaction of other impairments and conditions. Amend the wording in s34(1)(1A) to align more with the considerations outlined in s3.1(a-f) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013.
Amend the hierarchy of importance in s34(1)(1E) to weigh equally any relevant evidence presented including demonstrated evidence that a support has and does work for an individual participant. Ensure weighing evidence from qualified allied health professionals is weighed above generalised research that is not applicable to the participant’s situation or impairment/s.
Amend s34(1)(1H)(a) to clarify that the additional disability related need for supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support will be considered / funded. Reword s34(1)(1J)(b) to ensure legitimate support needed to contribute towards a home being sustainable can still be funded.
4. Plan reassessments
● The Bill proposes a narrow criteria for Participants to submit a plan reassessment application, requiring the changes to be substantial and unanticipated.
● Anticipated life-stage transition phases [eg. teenagers leaving school, young adults moving out of home, participants changing jobs] would not fit within the proposed criteria and would rely on the Agency to initiate a reassessment in a timely manner. Agency initiated reassessments are not common even when necessary. In 2025 only 1% of plan reassessments were initiated by the Agency [ref: Explanatory Memorandum].
● The Bill proposes that only a participant or their authorised plan nominee / child representative would be able to submit a request for a plan reassessment, and that the request must be in a form approved by the Agency or it does not need to be considered. This creates an accessibility barrier for participants who are their own decision makers but who require AAC devices or support to transmit and submit information, or who require supported decision making to enact a request, but do not need a formal plan nominee to provide substitute decision making.
Recommend: Allow for “anticipated” changes in s48A(3) if a plan change is necessary. Include provision for scenarios where the Agency is required to consider a reassessment (e.g. primary informal support incapacitated/reduced capacity; when a regulated restrictive practice is identified; when a participant is moving out of home or a facility).
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 4
Submission 847
Include provision in s48(2)(b) for specific consent for third parties to help submit (submit, not initiate) a reassessment when the participant requires assistance, and in an accessible format.
5. Plan renewals
● The Bill proposes that renewed plans do not require a copy of the new plan to be provided within 7 days to the Participant. This reduces transparency for participants.
● There is no identified provision for one-off funds [ie capital supports] to be carried over into a successor/renewed plan if the item hasn’t been purchased yet.
Recommend: Retain legislation to provide a copy of new plans within 7 days as per s38.
Stipulate the same timeframe in which the proposed s38(3) must occur = “At the same time as providing a participant with a copy of a plan 28 under subsection (1) or (2), the CEO must, if the funding 29 component amount in the plan is affected by a determination made under 34A (determination reducing funding for groups of 1 supports), notify the participant of the effect of the determination.”
Include provision for capital / one-off supports that have not been claimed yet to remain available in the renewed plan under s50A(2)(b).
6. Plan suspension and revocation
● The Bill proposes to introduce powers to suspend and revoke participants from the Scheme if the Agency is unable to contact a participant after “reasonable attempts” which assume that the details held on file are accurate, and assume that the correct correspondence method is being used.
● There is no safeguard built into this proposal i.e. welfare checks or next of kin contact for participants who may be vulnerable, disengaged due to crisis, have literacy barriers or no access to use a phone or tech, or displaced due to homelessness or hospitalisation.
Recommend: Incorporate safeguard measures to determine / confirm accuracy of contact details and correspondence method on file in s30(1A) and s40A. Incorporate safeguard to require the Agency to attempt multiple forms of contact over a 6 week period including contacting next of kin on file or linked providers on file. Conduct / initiate a welfare check if the participant is missing / unreachable.
7. Minister powers
● The Bill proposes new powers for the NDIS Minister to control pricing:
● Funding caps - the power to decide to “cap” prices, funding amounts, ratios and intensity of support as a generalised limit, not an individual consideration.
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 5
Submission 847
● Support determinations - the power to decide to reduce budget spending for any cohort, with any category of support, by a percentage up to 99.99% of what has already been determined to be reasonable and necessary for participants, with no right to review or appeal. Provision in the Bill already requires decision makers to consider scheme sustainability when making R&N decisions. This exceptional measure undermines the R&N process, and makes planning decisions obsolete where the participant is not able to spend their allocated funds. This creates extremely high risks for participants who are not funded for excess support, and who require those supports to undertake essential day to day functions.
● Social community budgets and therapy services are flagged to be the first support determinations that will come into effect from October 1st 2026. Social community in particular is incorrectly characterised in the Explanatory Memorandum as a non-essential service. Social community is a label in a grouped budget, and cannot be generalised as one type of support/service for all Participants.
● Many participants in receipt of social community support have an established 24/7 support need, and reducing their social community budgets by 50% will place any high-support needs participant at immediate risk. Employment supports are also funded in the social community budget. This cannot be overlooked.
● Minister Butler stated that unskilled and unqualified workers (in a handful of isolated settings) had not been delivering on outcomes during social community service delivery. This necessitates a focus on strengthening the quality and oversight of providers, not on removing access to sufficient funding for Participants to seek those quality services. Participants will need to compromise and cut necessary hours, or use “dodgy” providers.
Recommend: Remove s34A (support determinations and caps) from the Bill. Focus on defining and getting “reasonable & necessary” decisions correct and aligned with participant support requirements at the planning stage. OR Reduce the percentage in s34A(1)(a) to lower than 25% and Include measures to exempt cohorts requiring 24/7 support or 1:1 ratios of support, and measures for participants to apply for an exemption under s34A(5). Include stipulations with how the proposed s34A(3) clause will be upheld, considered, implemented, monitored and reviewed = “In making the determination, the Minister must have regard to the safety of participants.”
8. Functional capacity definition
● The Bill proposes to define functional capacity in the Act without the framework that will inform how and what is to be considered, along with how this will be measured. Those details would be designed at a later date with broad powers to change the way someone’s functioning is measured and defined.
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 6
Submission 847
● The Bill also proposes to remove personal and environmental factors from being considered when determining someone’s functioning - which is unrealistic as the environment and personal factors contribute to how someone can function in their day to day life. This is not an equitable approach.
Recommend: Retain provision for considering personal and environmental factors in s9B(1)(b). Narrow and define the scope that future Rules will be able to influence how this definition is measured and applied in s9B(2) and s9B(3). Include measures to ensure a co-design approach is applied.
9. Permanence of impairment
● The Bill proposes that eligibility would depend on passing the “appropriate treatments exhausted” test - that all treatments had been tried, whether that treatment is actually available to the person or not. If a treatment is not affordable or available in someone’s area, it is not an appropriate treatment for that person.
● The Bill also proposes that future Rules will be able to determine provisions for different cohorts or impairments or classes of impairments.
Recommend: Omit s25A(2). Omit s25A(5). Add s25A(1)(d) to stipulate the treatment must be culturally and linguistically appropriate, affordable, and available within the geographical location.
10. Alternative service systems
● The Bill proposes to exclude applicants or existing participants from being eligible for the Scheme if other service systems are deemed more appropriate, even if that service system doesn’t or cannot offer the disability related support needed. Unlike the current NDIS Supports and Compensation Rules, which allow the Agency to reduce or not fund a particular support when it’s the other system’s responsibility, this would exclude individuals from being accepted onto the scheme altogether.
● The Bill proposes to give the Minister powers to declare alternative supports / services by legislative Rules in the future, with potential expansion of exclusions over time
Recommend: Remove s25B and all associated sections relating to Alternative support requirements for exclusion from the Scheme. Instead, include strengthened and clarified provisions for determining service system responsibilities in s34 and future NDIS Supports Rules under s10. Work towards a new collaborative arrangement between Federal/States, and NDIS/Mainstream interfaces, and other insurance schemes, when a Participant needs to engage with multiple service systems. This is necessary to reduce/remove the gaps when neither service system accepts responsibility to fund disability related support.
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 7
Submission 847
Endorsement of additional submission
I also endorse all 35 suggestions identified in The Growing Space’s submission, which addresses many of the points raised in my submission, along with additional recommendations:
Our Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee – The Growing Space
In conclusion
My request is for every Senate Member to PLEASE take the time to read and understand this Bill properly. Please ask clarifying questions and research beyond the surface to understand what this Bill would mean for Australians if passed.
Please question why the fraud and funding misuse that has been headlining the media is not being prioritised, targeted and reflected in these measures.
This Bill cannot be endorsed to pass in its current form.
Please:
● Focus on addressing systemic leakages and inconsistencies within the Scheme design and internally, within the National Disability Insurance Agency itself.
● Prioritise targeting fraud and misuse of funds, and strengthening safeguards rather than facilitating the removal of support for every participant. Supports that have already been deemed reasonable and necessary, essential supports in individual NDIS plans.
● Seek more time to consider community input and the implications across the sector, including recommendations from disability legal services, advocacy services, community welfare services, carer support services and mainstream service systems.
● Listen to the community. Listen to disabled people. Listen to those who have lived with segregation and in institutionalised settings. Listen to those who rely on the Scheme to be and genuinely remain sustainable so they can not just survive, but thrive. Listen to individuals and families who have been exposed to trauma, abuse and neglect.
● Speak for fellow Australians who cannot speak for themselves.
● Stand for a sustainable scheme that delivers on individual outcomes, not just budgets.
Please act for Australians who want an ordinary chance at an ordinary life.
Thank you,
Laura Schutz
27/05/2026 - Individual Senate Inquiry Submission 8