Submission 1588
Mr Alex Bozinovski
Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Canberra ACT 2600
27 May 2026
Dear Committee Secretary,
Re: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 - Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry
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.
I am a father and carer of a NDIS participant, my 8-year-old daughter. She is Autistic with a diagnosis of ASD level 3.
I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
The short timeline creates an insurmountable barrier for families like mine; I am writing this at 2AM because providing constant care for my daughter leaves me zero daylight hours to respond. People with disability and their carers are a group who especially need adequate time to process complex changes alongside their daily care responsibilities. Rushing this process shuts out the exact people the NDIS is meant to serve.
Recommendation:
Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
Submission 1588
The issue:
The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants:
The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.
The uncertainty of these proposed changes places an immense burden of anxiety on our family. Our absolute priority is the wellbeing and development of our daughter. We have worked tirelessly to establish an exceptional therapeutic team that drives her progress toward independence and a happy, dignified life. Disrupted supports would not just pause this progress; it would have dire consequences for her development and our family’s stability.
Recommendation:
Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions
The issue:
The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part 4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.
How this affects participants:
This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
These changes spark profound fear and anxiety for our family because disability is dynamic; circumstances change unexpectedly, and losing the ability to access extra support when needed guarantees severe harm from unmet needs. I have grave fears for participants with ‘hidden’ or fluctuating disabilities like my daughter
Submission 1588
under a standardised reassessment process, and I deeply fear the loss of her NDIS plan and the crucial supports that sustain her development and growing independence.
Recommendation: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.
Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories
The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal (Schedule 1 Part 5).
How this affects participants: A participant’s community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for cost items will lose that ability entirely.
Forcing vulnerable people to navigate a complex, hostile bureaucracy with fewer rights strips them of both power and dignity. This is completely at odds with the purpose of the Scheme. For our family, this creates a terrifying power imbalance, leaving us with no avenue to defend our daughter’s funding or protect the established therapy team working to secure her independent future.
Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3).
How this affects participants: People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than
Submission 1588
their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.
Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need
The issue: The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.
The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
How this affects participants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their support needs undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
As a family managing a ‘hidden’ disability such as Autism alongside ADHD, a rigid, sandardised assessment tool administered by an assessor who may lack appropriate expertise risks missing the nuanced and fluctuating realities of our daily lives. Without input from a qualified allied health professional with expertise in child development, and without consideration of her whole-of-person context, my daughter risks being inaccurately assessed, resulting in significant underfunding (or no funding at all) with serious consequences for her developmental trajectory and capacity for independence.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Supports cut before replacement system is ready
Submission 1588
The Issue:
From 1 October 2026, the Government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50% and capacity building daily activities by 10% for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.
How this affects participants:
Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
Imposing sweeping, arbitrary cuts to community participation and to daily capacity building without any reasonable basis and before alternative systems are in place is completely outrageous and extremely unjust. These senseless and unjustified reductions will actively sabotage my daughter’s progress toward independence that our family has worked so hard to achieve. They will also cause immense harm and suffering to NDIS participants in general, due to isolation and neglect.
Recommendation:
Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.
Expanded definition of ‘parental responsibility’
The Issue:
The Bill broadens the definition of ‘parental responsibility,’ creating a legal presumption that parents are expected to provide substantial unpaid care and support beyond what is typical for a child of the same age. This includes supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support, and behavioural support. The NDIA cannot fund supports if their primary purpose is to reduce this parental burden.
How this affects participants:
Reduced Funding: Fewer funded hours for therapies, transport, and daily personal care. Higher Family Burden: Parents must absorb more complex, specialised care hours themselves. Increased Evidence Burden: Families must submit intensive medical reports to prove a child’s needs exceed ‘typical’ parenting. Risk of Carer Burnout: Less access to respite services can lead to severe family stress.
As a family, we are already stretched beyond our limits; my daughter also has ADHD, my wife is neurodivergent, I manage multiple painful musculoskeletal
Submission 1588
conditions alongside depression and anxiety, and we both care for our own aging parents. Legally forcing us to absorb complex, specialised care hours under the guise of “parental responsibility” completely disregards our actual capacity to provide care, threatening my daughter’s developmental progress, our family’s survival and ensuring severe burnout.
Recommendation: Reject the standardised definition of “parental responsibility” and amend the Bill to explicitly mandate that any assessment must evaluate the actual, real-world capacity of the household. The NDIA must be legally barred from factoring informal care into planning as a cost-saving exercise.
Conclusion
The success of the NDIS should be measured not only by financial sustainability, but by whether it enables Australians with disability to live safe, dignified, and ordinary lives.
People with disability and their families already invest substantial time and energy advocating for the supports and adjustments required to participate in society on equal terms. These reforms must not increase that burden or reduce access to essential supports.
We urge the Committee to reject the Bill in its current form and to ensure that any future reform is developed through genuine co-design with people with disability, families, and representative organisations.
Any reform must preserve equitable access to the supports people rely on to build capacity, participate in their communities, and live meaningful lives, while also improving efficiency and reducing complexity within the NDIS.
Thank you for considering my experience and recommendations.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Alex Bozinovski
Consent Statement: I consent to this submission being published with my contact details withheld and my name included.