Submission 976
Submission: Impact of the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Summary:
- The Bill’s expanded enforcement and faster plan-variation powers risk interruptions to essential supports for participants such as me, with complex, progressive and psychosocial needs; urgent amendments (such as Division 7/continuity-of-supports protections) are required to guarantee interim funding, expedited review and advocacy access so critical supports are not lost.
Participant profile:
-
Age: 65.
-
Primary conditions: Parkinson’s disease (permanent and progressive neurological and movement disorder requiring allied health, mobility aids,home modifications) and co-morbid psychosocial disabilities (mood disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder).
-
Current Supports (from limited funds): allied health (occupational therapy and psychologist), and supported transport.
-
Unfunded Reasonable and Necessary Supports (due to lack of funds): home modifications, allied health reports and regular clinical reviews.
-
I also rely on a small set of trusted local providers and informal family supports. Direct ways the Bill will disadvantage me:
1 / 5
Submission 976
- Risk of immediate interruption to essential reasonable and necessary supports.
- Rapid enforcement powers, cooling-off or plan-variation mechanisms could remove or delay personal care, medication administration or allied health supports. For a person with Parkinson’s, interruptions risk falls, medication mismanagement, rapid functional decline and hospitalisation.
- Loss of continuity where providers withdraw.
- Broader banning/penalty powers and heavier compliance burdens may cause small or specialist providers (who deliver trusted physical and psychosocial supports) to exit the market or refuse higher-risk clients, reducing availability in my area and undermining choice and continuity.
- Reduced ability to exercise supported decision-making
- The Bill does not explicitly require risk-enablement or supported decision-making safeguards; increased surveillance/enforcement could prompt overly risk-averse decisions (e.g., reduced in-home supports), undermining my autonomy and preference for living at home.
- Inadequate procedural protections and delayed remedies
- Limited notice periods, restricted review rights or slow merits review processes could leave me without fast remedies. For someone with fluctuating capacity and psychosocial needs, delays in accessing advocacy and review can have immediate health and safety consequences.
- Privacy and stress impacts from expanded information powers
- Expanded information-gathering powers and evidentiary certificates will heighten stress, reduce my trust in, and discourage engagement with my providers — particularly affecting my psychosocial and physical disabilities and willingness to seek supports.
- Disproportionate harm due to age and co-morbidities 2 / 5
Submission 976
- Having a progressive neurological disease, such as Parkinson’s, along with psychosocial disabilities need continuity and stability; or they can worsen rapidly.
- Practical consequences:
-
Without a support worker to transport and accompany me outside the home and provide companionship → increased psychosocial and physical deterioration, fall risk leading to possible hospital admission.
-
Limiting allied health support, such as occupational and specialised neurophysiotherapy → loss of gait training and mobility, faster functional decline and greater long-term cost.
-
Lack of psychosocial support→ relapse of depression/anxiety, mood disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder → reduced capacity to manage Parkinson’s symptoms, and increased emergency service use and hospitalisation.
-
If small providers cease operating due to compliance costs → I will be forced to accept unfamiliar providers, with risk to rapport, safety and continuity, or withdraw from treatments entirely.
Recommendations:
-
Insert continuity-of-supports protections (immediate interim funding and supports) — adopt Division 7 wording previously provided, ensuring interim supports remain until review or new plan is in place.
-
Mandatory minimum notice and urgent review timelines — require notice tailored to participant vulnerability (minimum 7 days, except imminent harm) and guaranteed expedited merits review within 14 days.
-
Codify supported decision-making and dignity of risk — require decision-makers to consider participant preferences, risk-enablement plans and input from treating clinicians before restricting supports.
-
Provider exit/market impact mitigations — require regulator to consider market consequences before imposing measures that would remove sole or critical local providers,
3 / 5
Submission 976
and to activate transition funding or brokered replacement supports where market failure is likely.
-
Privacy safeguards and limited data use — narrow information-gathering scope for vulnerable participants and require plain-language reasons and limits on evidentiary certificates.
-
Guaranteed advocacy/referral — automatic referral to independent advocacy services where a proposed action affects essential supports, with support for decision-making and representation in expedited reviews.
-
Retain participants’ right of appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal or other independent body that can rule on plan reassessments.
-
Monitoring and reporting — require the Commission to publish data on interruptions to supports and outcomes for vulnerable cohorts (age 65+, progressive neurological and psychosocial disabilities) to allow evaluation and corrective action.
Suggested wording to include in amendments:
-
Duty to ensure interim funding/supports before enforcement actions take effect where necessary supports would be interrupted (see Division 7, sections 114B–114E).
-
Definition of “necessary supports” to include medication administration, personal care, allied health required to prevent serious deterioration or loss of housing.
-
Express requirement to consider treating clinician advice and participant preferences; referral to advocacy; and expedited review timelines (14 days).
Conclusion:
As drafted, I think the Bill risks serious, immediate harm to older participants with progressive neurological and psychosocial conditions, through interruptions of essential supports, loss of trusted providers, and inadequate procedural protections. The amendments above (continuity of supports, expedited review, supported decision-making, advocacy referral and market impact mitigations) are necessary and proportionate to
4 / 5
Submission 976
protect health and safety while preserving the Bill’s integrity objectives.
Thank you for considering my submission.
5 / 5