Opposes amendments allowing reduced NDIS supports (Individual advocacy) | External submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 912

24 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

Dear committee Secretary,

This submission opposes specific amendments however will also submit general concerns regarding the apparent general purpose of the multiple amendments, without addressing each.

This is a personal submission, as an Occupational Therapist who has worked within the NDIS Scheme in a public and private capacity. I am currently working in a health/hospital setting. Have been involved in the disability sector in various roles over 25 years.

The specific amendments I oppose include:

9B (definition of functional capacity), namely (a) methods or criteria to be applied for the purposes of subsection (1), including classifications or thresholds relevant to an assessment of a person’s ability to undertake an activity;

34A (Determination reducing funding for groups of supports) (1) For the purposes of ensuring the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine: (a) a percentage (lower than 100%) that is the percentage by which a funding component amount for a specified group of supports is reduced while the determination is in force;

(3) In making the determination, the Minister must have regard to the safety of participants. (4) The determination does not have the effect of altering, or requiring alterations to, the text of the plans to which it applies.

60 Paragraph 3(1)(d) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (d) provide NDIS supports for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme that are reasonable and necessary, so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme;

I also oppose the general function of amendments proposed in this Bill. The specific amendments above represent the crux of my concerns.

The intentions of these amendments appear to be to give the Federal Government flexibility to ‘reign in’ the scheme and save money, and well as lean on foundational supports more. Most amendments appear to be to this end. While these are not bad goals in themselves, it is doubtful they will be achieved by these amendments. If money is saved Federally, it will be because it is shifted to state governments who can ill afford it.

The amendments allow the NDIS to act as it pleases as far as saying yes and no to plans and funding. Substituted paragraph ‘so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme’ allows

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 912

this to occur. As does the schemes prescription of ‘methods or criteria to be applied for the purposes of subsection (1),including classifications or thresholds relevant to an assessment of a person’s ability to undertake an activity’. The conflicts of interest between the participants and the funding body are obvious when they do their own assessing. This would not be so bad if there were good will and systems behind it.

My concern with these amendments is that they will only likely worsen the function of the scheme and increase the cost to the public.

The amendments do not address the inherent and non-resolvable issues of the scheme in its current form. If I was assessing the schemes functional capacity, it would score very low indeed. This is because it was born with substantial impairments that will not go away. Here are some of the issues.

It behaves like an insurance company, with little good will. Insurance schemes do not have good records for working in the public interest. Why would this be a good format?
It brings in additional levels of poor administration. Qualified and safeguarded therapists need to justify their reasoning to often poorly and inconsistently educated planners. This costs a boat load of dollars. Unfortunately, the Federal Government seems to have thought this is such a good system that they are now wasting dollars in aged care in the same way.
It seems to require copious amounts of money spent on functional/ other assessments, that often aren’t read because the scheme seems to do as it pleases anyway.
There is next to no actual accountability in any of it. Most administrators don’t really know what they are doing. And no one cares much. The ‘legalities’ via the act don’t really mean much in practice. These amendments are just formalising this lack of accountability.

Systems are only as good as their people. It’s been great to have more money in this sector. It has allowed for supports that are really based on need and provided more appropriate service/product provision to develop. However the administration of these scheme has been inefficient and at times dangerous. Systems are dispersed and unstable, allowing for theft, poor and dangerous practice, and inconsistency. Good people and systems take time to develop.

Yes, diagnosis has to a degree followed the money, however diagnosis has also followed a huge shift in society internationally that has seen increases in developmental delays and health issues. I’m

afraid this is likely to worsen.  Leaving people without sufficient support is not the answer.  It will

lead to increased hospitalizations, poor family/carer wellbeing, increased poverty, increased incarcerations, and really the list goes on. I see this now in hospitals with admissions because people cannot obtain suitable support. Expenditure needs to properly factor in the cost of not funding support, and fund the cost of good systems.

In summary, these amendments seem to be a quick ‘money saving’ political fix for something that is very complex. They further put the safety and wellbeing of participants and their families at risk. The system itself requires restructuring with effective and accountable administration the focus. This can be done with time and research. I would suggest this can be done through using and strengthening the Disability Services and Inclusion Act as a framework. This will provide the stability to allow for improved quality, rather than decreasing as it currently the case.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit my concerns,