National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by a person with lived experience of disability.
Disclaimer I work in the Australian Public Service. This submission is made in my personal capacity. The views expressed are my own and do not represent the views of my employer, the Australian Public Service, or the Australian Government. I have not used or disclosed any confidential or non-public information obtained through my employment.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
Who I Am I am a 55 year old person with disability living in Canberra. I believe deeply in the original vision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme as a system that provides choice, control, dignity, and inclusion for people with disability.
I still hope this vision can be protected.
However, the changes proposed in the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, combined with earlier legislative and administrative changes, suggest a shift away from that vision. The Bill appears to prioritise budget savings over people’s rights, wellbeing, and long-term outcomes. Constant media reports suggesting that the ‘bloated’ NDIS has drifted and is now a system that is being rorted.
Many people with disability, including people in my community, are frightened about what these changes will mean for their daily lives and their future. Some are starting to discuss voluntary assisted dying as the only viable alternative to what the NDIS would become under this Bill.
I ask the Committee to consider the real-world impacts of the Bill on people like me, and not to pass it in its current form.
Issue 1. Consultation process The process that produced this Bill has caused harm in its own right. It was not co-designed with the disability community. It was not developed through genuine consultation. It has been put forward about us, without us.
The compressed timeframe for submissions has added to the sense that the government does not expect, or perhaps does not want, meaningful feedback from the people most affected.
This is another major NDIS amendment that has not been co-designed with the disability community. We have been told repeatedly that we have had opportunities to engage, but these opportunities have not met the promised standards of co-design. This government came to power promising to reinvigorate the NDIS, yet what has followed has been reform after reform, each requiring rapid responses under unrealistic timelines.
The Office of Impact Analysis within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet sets out clear expectations for best-practice consultation, including early engagement, adequate timeframes, and genuine inclusion of affected communities. This process does not meet those standards.
People with disability have a right to be included in decisions that affect our lives. As such, I ask the Committee to recommend extending the feedback period to a minimum of 60 days.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
Issue 2. Functional capacity and access Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Bill amends sections 24, 25 and 27 of the NDIS Act to require functional capacity to be assessed “in the absence of supports”. This means the NDIA must assess a person’s capacity without considering assistive technology, support workers, home modifications, or environmental adjustments. This does not reflect how disability works in real life and risks excluding people who rely on these supports to live safely and independently.
I rely on mobility devices every time I leave my home, including at work. Without these devices, my functional capacity would be far lower. I do not have informal supports: no family or friends who can step in. If the NDIA assumes I can function without assistive technology or support workers when I cannot, I risk being pushed into institutional care and I am not alone. This would be harmful, unnecessary, and far more expensive than providing appropriate supports now.
The Bill applies broad assumptions to whole groups of people, rather than recognising individual needs. This risks excluding people who rely on supports to maintain independence, safety, and participation.
The Bill must be amended so that functional capacity is assessed with the supports a person reasonably relies on, not in their absence. Eligibility should reflect how people live in the real world, and assessments must recognise the role of assistive technology, environmental adjustments, and paid supports in enabling independence and safety. No one should be excluded from the NDIS on the basis of hypothetical functioning that does not reflect their actual circumstances.
Issue 3. Access to appropriate supports outside the NDIS The Bill assumes that people diverted from or removed from the NDIS will rely on other service systems, including “foundational supports”. However, these systems do not currently exist at the scale required.
Only around 15% of Australians with disability receive NDIS support. The remaining 85% — including me — rely on supports that were dismantled as the NDIS rolled out. When I applied for the NDIS, the process took more than 12 months, with repeated requests for unspecified information. Despite using a wheelchair for 30 years and having significant functional limitations, I was told I did not have a “significant disability”. At the time, I relied on Home and Community Care (HACC) services, which no longer exist in the same form. Since then, I have struggled to find providers and fund essential supports myself.
Government statements and the Explanatory Memorandum indicate that around 160,000 people may be diverted from or removed from the Scheme. Yet there is no defined workforce, secure funding, or service infrastructure to support them. Without foundational
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
supports in place, this will lead to increased isolation, hospitalisation, institutionalisation, pressure on carers, and higher long-term costs to government.
People must not be diverted from or removed from the NDIS until foundational supports are fully funded, staffed, and available at scale. Access decisions should not be based on systems that do not yet exist.
Issue 4. Loss of Choice and Control Section 34A (Schedule 1, Part 6) of the Bill gives the Minister broad powers to: set maximum amounts, ratios, or limits on supports apply these limits across groups of participants introduce these limits through legislative instruments, without full parliamentary debate.
Decisions made under section 34A are listed as non-reviewable under new section 100A. This means participants could lose essential supports even when those supports are assessed as reasonable and necessary for their individual circumstances.
The only limitation to this power is that the Minister must ‘have regard’ for the safety of participants.
These changes will reduce choice and control, increase costs, and disadvantage people in rural and remote areas. They undermine: natural justice procedural fairness the rights of people with disability Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
They also create uncertainty for people who rely on stable, predictable supports to live safely and independently. There is no clear justification for granting such broad powers to a single decision maker. Section 34A should be amended to prevent broad, non-reviewable limits on supports. Any caps or ratios must be transparent, evidence-based, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and reviewable by participants. Decisions that affect essential supports should not rest with a single decision-maker without safeguards.
Issue 5. Reduction in social and community participation funding As part of the powers granted under Section 34A, the Minister may set limits on categories of supports. While the Bill does not specify a percentage reduction, Government statements
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
and the Explanatory Memorandum indicate that social and community participation supports are expected to be reduced by around half from October 2026.
Public commentary has suggested that community participation funding is unnecessary or prone to misuse. This does not reflect its purpose. Community participation funding is not about paying for movies or haircuts. It is about enabling people with disability to do everyday things safely and independently, things that others take for granted. It helps people stay connected, visible, and included.
Concerns about support workers “being on their phones” overlook the reality that workers may be: coordinating additional supports communicating with services giving the participant space to enjoy being in public.
I am realistic: misuse does occur. When it does, it should be addressed through improved provider regulation, not by removing essential supports. When Medicare providers misuse the system, Australians do not lose access to Medicare. The same principle should apply here.
Reducing community participation funding, whether by 50% or any other amount, will push people with disability back into isolation.
Limits on social and community participation supports should not be introduced. The Bill should be amended to protect funding for community participation, recognising it as essential to safety, independence, and inclusion, not an optional extra.
Issue 6. “Not Contactable” and Participant Engagement Rules Schedule 1 Part 7 of the Bill gives the NDIA broad powers to suspend a participant’s plan and, ultimately, revoke their status if they are deemed “not contactable”. If a suspension lasts 90 days, participant status itself may be at risk.
This will disproportionately affect people who are: in hospital experiencing mental health crises unable to communicate due to disability without support to manage communication experiencing homelessness or housing instability.
Many participants cannot use mainstream communication methods. These needs are already recorded in NDIA systems, yet the Bill does not appear to take them into account.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
Under the proposed rules, supports may be paused or removed with no right of appeal. This will create unnecessary risk and distress.
The Bill must include safeguards to ensure that participants are not suspended or exited from the Scheme due to communication barriers, hospitalisation, homelessness, or disability-related factors. Decisions to suspend or revoke participant status should remain reviewable, and the NDIA should be required to make reasonable efforts to contact people using methods appropriate to their needs.
Other Concerns with the Bill In addition to the major issues outlined above, several other provisions in the Bill raise significant concerns.
“All Appropriate Treatments” test and barriers to access Schedule 1, Part 8 introduces new eligibility requirements that would prevent people from accessing the NDIS if treatments exist that could improve or reduce the impact of their impairment. This includes overturning the Federal Court’s decision in NDIA v Davis [2022] FCA 1002, which found that people should not be excluded simply because a treatment exists if they cannot realistically access it due to cost, geography, or other barriers (proposed subsection 25A(2)).
The Bill also requires people to have undertaken “all appropriate treatment” before they can access the NDIS (proposed subsections 24(5)(a) and 25(1B)(a)). “Appropriate treatment” is defined as evidence-based, regularly undertaken in Australia, and expected to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impairment. These criteria are broad and may be difficult to apply fairly. Available treatments vary widely by location, some are outdated or harmful, and some conditions, such as ME/CFS, have been subject to discredited treatment models. People should not be penalised for living in areas with limited services or for declining unsafe or inappropriate treatments.
Exemptions may apply where there are medical reasons not to undertake treatment, or where NDIS Rules specify that treatment is not required (proposed subsections 25A(3)–(4)). However, the requirement may still have unfair impacts. People could be excluded while waiting years to see whether a treatment produces improvement, even if they continue to have substantially reduced functional capacity. Those with progressive conditions may also be disadvantaged if treatment slows, but does not reverse, deterioration. The Bill also excludes people who refuse treatment for non-medical reasons, raising concerns about bodily autonomy. The requirement applies equally to early intervention supports.
Any treatment-based eligibility test must be narrowly defined, evidence-based, and applied in a way that does not penalise people for geography, cost, safety concerns, or the nature of their condition. The Bill should be amended to ensure people are not excluded from the
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
NDIS simply because a treatment exists, or because they decline treatment that is unsafe, inappropriate, or inaccessible.
Other available systems limiting access The Bill also introduces new barriers to access through proposed section 25B, which overrides the recent Federal Court decision in NDIA v Sutherland [2026] FCA 3 (“Sutherland”). In Sutherland, the Court confirmed that a person does not need to prove that other government programs or supports cannot meet their needs before accessing the NDIS. The Bill reverses this position and creates two new ways in which people receiving support from other systems may be denied access to the Scheme:
- people whose impairments arise from car accidents or workplace injuries and who are covered by a compensation scheme will not qualify for the NDIS (proposed subsections 25B(2)–(3))
- the Minister, with state and territory agreement, may make NDIS Rules to exclude other groups of people who receive certain supports (proposed subsection 25B(4))
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the aged care system could be one of the systems used in this way. This raises concerns that people who already access aged care may be denied disability-specific supports through the NDIS, even when aged care programs cannot meet their needs. This may disproportionately affect groups such as First Nations people, homeless people and people at risk of homelessness, who can access aged care from age 50 but may still be eligible for the NDIS.
Eligibility rules must ensure that people are not excluded from the NDIS solely because they receive supports from another system. The Bill should be amended so that access is based on functional need, not program boundaries, and so that people who rely on aged care or other systems are not prevented from receiving disability-specific supports.
Unscheduled reassessments and reduced review rights Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Bill changes the NDIA’s powers to initiate and respond to reassessments (amending sections 47, 48, 48A and 49). These amendments allow the NDIA to change, reduce, or shorten plans without a participant request, and many of the resulting decisions will no longer be reviewable under sections 100 and 100A.
The Bill also restricts when participants can request a reassessment. Under proposed section 48A, a reassessment can only be sought if there has been a significant and ongoing change in support needs. This must involve either a substantial change in functional capacity or an unanticipated change in personal circumstances, such as losing a primary carer. Temporary injuries or short‑term changes will no longer qualify. If a participant runs out of funding early but their needs have not changed significantly, the Explanatory Memorandum confirms their request will be refused.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
The process for requesting reassessments is also tightened. The NDIA’s decision timeframe increases from 21 to 90 days, requests must be made in a specific form with all information the NDIA requires, and existing safeguards for delays are removed. Instead of reassessing a plan, the NDIA may transition a participant to a new framework plan — a decision that is not reviewable.
Reassessments are one of the few ways participants can respond to changes in their lives. These amendments will leave people with fewer options when their plan no longer meets their needs, creating instability and fear for those who rely on continuity of care to live safely and independently.
Participants must retain the right to request a reassessment when their plan no longer meets their needs, and decisions that change or reduce supports must remain reviewable. The Bill should be amended to restore timely reassessment rights, maintain safeguards, and ensure that transitions to new framework plans cannot occur without participant consent or review rights
New Definition of Functional Capacity Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Bill also introduces a new definition of functional capacity, and Schedule 1, Part 3 requires the NDIA to only fund supports related to disabilities that are “accepted” by the Agency.
This means that even when a person has multiple disabilities that interact and affect daily life, only some may be recognised for support. This risks leaving people without assistance for real and disabling impacts that affect their independence, safety, and wellbeing.
Conclusion and Recommendations The NDIS was designed to uphold dignity, independence, and inclusion. The proposed Bill risks returning Australia to a fragmented, underfunded, and inequitable system.
I ask that the Committee:
- Rejects the Bill in its current form.
- Removes provisions that reduce appeal rights or grant unilateral ministerial powers.
- Ensures functional capacity assessments consider supports, assistive technology, and environment.
- Guarantees that foundational supports are fully funded and operational before any participant is removed from the NDIS.
- Retains community participation funding as an essential component of inclusion.
- Protects participant communication rights and prohibit punitive “not contactable” rules.
- Ensures any “appropriate treatment” requirements are evidence-based, safe, and accessible.
- Preserves choice and control as core principles of the Scheme.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1197
- Extends the consultation period to a minimum of 60 days and acknowledge the harm caused by repeated reforms introduced without adequate co-design.
The NDIS must remain a system that supports people with disability, not one that abandons them.