Submission 1554

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

To: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 31 May 2026

Author: Jane Britt

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill).

I am writing in a personal capacity in my role as NDIS & Disability Policy Consultant for my own consulting firm, and as a NDIS participant, who is deafblind. I have worked across the disability sector for over a decade in disability policy and governance roles, with substantial input into the Disability Royal Commission and NDIS Review, amongst other inquiries. I was a member of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet NDIS Review Cogroup. The views expressed in this submission are entirely my own.

A note on parliamentary process

The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis states consultation best practice is to provide 30 days minimum (p.27)₁ however, the sector received only two weeks. This is insufficient on accessibility grounds. For a person with deafblindness, the process of reading the 289-page Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and the 113-page Bill requires time to read in an enlarged format, with the use of screen reader magnification, with regular breaks to manage visual fatigue.

Introduction

The announcements made on 22 April 2026 at the National Press Club by Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler₂, followed by reform announcements contained within Federal Budget Papers₃ released on 12 May, completed by tabling on 14 May of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill₄ have signalled a shift away from the human rights protections that people with disability and our representative organisations have fought to protect for decades – long before the existence of the Scheme.

Submission 1554

The Scheme came into existence following documentation of the lack of consistency in meeting service needs, identified in the 2009 Shut Out Report$^5$, and echoed in the 2011 Productivity Commission report$^6$ - the precursor report to the Scheme’s development. Unfortunately, elements of that fragmentation have continued to persist through the intervening years since Scheme development, which have been clearly identified in subsequent reviews including the 2019 Review of the Act (Tune Review)$^7$ and the Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS Review).$^8$ The Royal Commission into Violence, Neglect and Exploitation (Disability Royal Commission) supported the understanding of systems failing to adequately support needs, through modelling relating to unmet demand for disability advocacy (p.76)$^9$ – individual advocacy provided to people with disability whenever they have encountered a barrier in accessing a system, including disability services.

The Bill now propose to return people with disability to the same fragmented systems the Scheme was built to address. The actuarial modelling document tabled in the Senate on 27 May 2026$^{10}$ reveals that of participants who entered the Scheme before 1 January 2028, 241,000 are projected to exit by 30 June 2031. Before then, existing participants face funding reductions of 50 per cent for social, civic and community participation funding, and 10 per cent for the capacity building daily activities budget.$^{11}$ If participants lose access to existing supports, their needs will not disappear but those needs will still need to be supported in other systems.

In 2022, researchers at the Melbourne Disability Institute examined service delivery outside the NDIS for people with disability. They concluded the following:

‘Our research reveals complex, disconnected and incomplete markets of services and supports being navigated by people with disability and their families and carers; a service ecosystem riddled with inconsistent costs, eligibility criteria, information, priorities and availability of services; and heavy reliance on informal support networks and personal resources among people with disability without NDIS funding’ (p.13).$^{12}$

Submission 1554

This brings us to the present submission. While other national and peak advocacy organisations will cover the broader provisions of the Bill, this submission narrows focus to two explicit areas which are presumed will receive less scrutiny due to the sheer volume of material in the Bill and related documents. This submission focuses on the impact of Bill provisions, should they pass in two parts: 1) in meeting needs for people with disability that have degenerative prognoses and/or fluctuating or variable needs and 2) in examining the gendered impact of the Bill, considering Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence (DFV) prevalence rates for women and girls with disability, and the harmful consequences that reforms may have in failing to meet the needs. No gender impact analysis is available for the Bill at the present time.

Part 1: People with disability with degenerative conditions and/or fluctuating need

People with disability with degenerative conditions and/or fluctuating need will be adversely impacted by aspects of this Bill, including the tightening of eligibility criteria, assessment processes, removal of plan funding rollover and Ministerial power.

Treatment exhaustion as a gateway to eligibility

The amendment enabling treatment exhaustion as a gateway before eligibility is disconcerting. The Bill introduces two compounding restrictions on eligibility and support adequacy. Schedule 1 Part 8 requires a person to have exhausted all appropriate treatment options before an impairment can be found permanent, regardless of whether treatment is financially or geographically accessible (p.34). Schedule 1 Part 3 removes whole-of-person assessment, replacing it with a single eligible impairment test and removing the existing note acknowledging that environmental factors and other conditions can affect support need (p.11). For a person with disability with fluctuating needs, environmental factors are not incidental to the impact of disability, they are integral to it.

The EM itself invokes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities alongside other instruments by conducting a human rights compatibility analysis. It lists CRPD articles it considers engaged by the Bill. The CRPD is a human rights framework that protects the dignity, autonomy and bodily integrity of people with disability. Article 17 specifically protects the right to physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others, a right that is directly engaged when the State conditions access to support on a person having undergone medical treatment.$^{\text{13}}$ Yet it is not cited by the EM. The Australian Law Reform Commission confirmed in Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws (p.282)$^{\text{14}}$ that competent adults have an established common law right to refuse treatment. The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights$^{\text{15}}$

Submission 1554

affirms the right to make informed decisions, including about the risks of treatment. A provision that penalises a person for exercising that right has no place in legislation that purports to be consistent with the Convention.

Assessment cannot capture what changes over time

Schedule 1 Part 3 removes whole-of-person assessment, replacing it with assessment against a single eligible impairment (p.11). The EM confirms the intent: only support needs arising from impairments that meet the disability or early intervention requirements will be eligible for NDIS funding, removing the existing acknowledgement that environmental factors and other impairments affect support needs (p.24).

The named assessment tool is I-CAN. For people with degenerative or fluctuating disability, a point-in-time assessment is a fundamental design problem, not a validation gap. A condition whose presentation varies across days, weeks or months cannot be accurately captured in a single assessment.

It directly contradicts the Final Report of the NDIS Review, which recommended that budgets be set at a whole-of-person level based on support needs and intensity rather than functional impairments (p.88), and Action 3.3 which directed the NDIA to change the basis for setting budgets accordingly (p.92).

Existing participants lose ground mid-degeneration

The Bill does not grandfather existing participants. Changes to eligibility criteria (Parts 1 and 8; p.4 and p.34), restrictions on when reassessments can be requested (Part 2; p.7), automatic plan renewals with no review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions by ministerial instrument (Part 4; p.12) together represent a substantial reduction in the rights of people already in the Scheme to contest decisions about their supports and funding.

For existing participants with degenerative disability, the same issue applies as for those attempting to enter the Scheme; the potential loss of supports at a critical juncture in their lives, where their needs are escalating because of degenerative disability.

Unspent funds rollover removed

Schedule 1 Part 5 ends rollover of unspent funds at plan renewal (p.14). For people with disability with fluctuating needs, taking away plan funding rollover also takes away a vital safety net to meet needs that change day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to-year. It is a guarantee to put supports in place if it becomes apparent that degeneration of a disability will increase support needs, whenever that may occur.

Parliament is being asked to approve a framework it cannot yet see

The Bill hands the Minister power to determine who is eligible for the NDIS and at what funding level through legislative instruments, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny (Schedule 1 Parts 4, 8 and 9 – p.12, p.34 and p.37; Schedule 3 – p.86). The rules that will set the thresholds determining who qualifies for support have not been written.

Submission 1554

For a participant with degenerative disability and an unforeseen timeline for decline, this is particularly concerning. Ministerial power to remove critical funding during an active period of degradation could mean losing access to supports for skill acquisition at the precise moment they are needed. The skills not learned during a period of capacity cannot be recovered later.

Part 2: Gender analysis examining Domestic and Family Violence (DFV) interface

The Bill is silent on amendments that will support women with disability attempting to leave DFV and coercive control situations. This silence lands on an already compromised foundation. ANROWS research led by Professor Sally Robinson establishes that disability services often have limited capacity to respond to DFV, while DFV services often have limited capacity to address disability needs (Robinson et al., 2020).¹⁶ Professor JaneMaree Maher’s research is unambiguous: without secure housing and service support, responses to help a woman leave a violent situation have little chance of succeeding (Maher et al., 2018).¹⁷

Rather than addressing the existing gaps, the Bill’s amendments deepen them. Cuts to social, civic and community participation supports and the provision of unreviewable ministerial power to reduce funding will directly impact the ability of women leaving DFV and coercive control situations to access needed supports, while removing the community touchpoints that can provide avenues for exit.

Participation supports cut while replacement system remains unbuilt

The Government has announced a 50 per cent reduction to social, civic and community participation funding and a 10 per cent reduction to capacity building daily activities from 1 October 2026, to be implemented by ministerial instrument under Schedule 1 Part 4 (p.12). Foundational Supports, the system intended to meet the needs of people who lose these supports, does not yet exist. Participants will lose funding before anything is in place to replace it.

While the Bill explicitly cites Article 16 of the CRPD,¹⁸ provisions cutting social and community participation supports, which are a documented safety mechanism for women experiencing DFV, are not analysed against it.

In fact, the EM notes that ‘robust monitoring and evaluation will be required to identify risk to participants and the impacts of [social, civic and community participation funding cuts]’ including ‘impacts on gender equality and prevention of violence’ (pp.231-2).

Submission 1554

For a woman who may be in a situation of coercive control in her home environment, the removal of social and community participation also takes away another touchpoint to access people in the community who may be able to safely help her to leave her situation.

Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA) CEO Sophie Cusworth incisively remarked on the juxtaposition of additional funding for DFV measures, while cutting funding for women with disability and the vital supports they need for safety: ‘You cannot claim to prioritise women’s safety while cutting the supports that make safety and wellbeing for women with disability possible.’19

Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding

Under Schedule 1 Part 4, the Minister can reduce funding for any support category by a specified percentage through a legislative instrument that is not subject to merits review (p.12). This power applies across all budget categories. Schedule 1 Part 5 removes the ability to carry over unspent funds at plan renewal (p.14).

The scope of this power is significant. A reduction can take effect immediately, before Parliament has any opportunity to intervene, and participants have no avenue to challenge it.

Read alongside Schedule 1 Part 6 (p.23) which narrows the definition of reasonable and necessary in the Act itself, the two provisions operate in combination. The Minister can first restrict what qualifies as reasonable and necessary, and then further reduce funding within that already- narrowed definition by instrument.

For women escaping DFV, this could mean removal of the core supports that are enabling her to navigate the legal system, find new housing and establish a new life where she is safe and secure, potentially also trying to ensure her children are safe as well.

Conclusion

After decades of fighting for our rights to be acknowledged and protected, this is where we have arrived: a Bill that strips eligibility from 241,000 participants, removes whole-of-person assessment, hands Ministers unreviewable power to cut funding, and leaves women in violent situations without the community touchpoints that could help them leave. The uncertainty created by provisions yet to be written is the polar opposite of ‘nothing about us without us’ cited as a promise at the Press Club. These reforms are being done to us.

For a person with a degenerative condition and an unknowable timeline, or a woman trying to find her way out of a violent home, that uncertainty is the texture of daily life. The media discourse accompanying these reforms, which this submission’s author has written about directly, has framed people with disability as a fiscal problem to be managed rather than citizens whose rights are protected by instruments this Government has signed.

19 Women With Disabilities Australia. (2026, May 12). Federal budget is a devastating blow for women with disabilities. hhttps://wwda.org.au/2026/05/12/federal-budget-is-a-devastating-blow-for-women-with-disabilities/

Submission - National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 6

Submission 1554

This Committee has the opportunity to govern for all Australians, and to ensure, in Butler’s own terms, that the NDS is available for Australians who need it most. The Minister told the National Press Club: “Because if we act now, we can safeguard and strengthen it, so that it serves Australians it was created to help. So that it upholds its purpose of providing choice and control, dignity and opportunity to Australians with a permanent and significant disability.” This Bill, as it stands, does the opposite.

Recommendations

The following recommendations address the specific failures identified in this submission in relation to people with degenerative and fluctuating disability, and women with disability at the intersection of DFV.

• Recommendation 1: The Australian Government must remove the treatment exhaustion requirement from Schedule 1 Part 8. There are no safeguards for participants who face clinical risk from side effects or surgical complications, no recognition of financial barriers to treatment, and no allowance for geographic inaccessibility. This provision should not proceed.
• Recommendation 2: The Australian Government ensures that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility thresholds and funding levels are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, and that participants are given meaningful advance notice before changes take effect.
• Recommendation 3: The Australian Government introduces a no-harm safeguard ensuring no existing participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are demonstrably available, with independent review rights preserved before any exit decision takes effect and unscheduled reassessment access maintained.
• Recommendation 4: The Australian Government repeals Schedule 1 Part 4 in its entirety, and amends Schedule 1 Part 5 to ensure unspent funds carry over at plan renewal, preserving participants’ ability to save across plan periods for high-cost supports.
• Recommendation 5: The Australian Government does not proceed with Schedule 1 Part 3 in its current form, restoring the acknowledgement that environmental factors and other impairments affect support needs, and ensuring assessment remains at a whole-of-person level consistent with the findings of the NDS Review.
• Recommendation 6: The Australian Government does not proceed with the announced reductions to community participation and capacity building supports under Schedule 1 Part 4.