Submission 1793
PWDA Template: Submission to
the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au Date: 29/5/26
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 an NDIS participant and disabled person with physical and psychosocial disabilities. Only my psychosocial disabilities are recognised since a planning meeting that was sprung on me in 2024 just after legislation changed.
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
Submission 1793
needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says
consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
The short timeline impacts me by putting undue pressure on my nervous system.
Trying to find out how to even upload a submission has taken me several hours, because when I am under stress dense text is very difficult to read and understand. I
can feel the pressing needs of my work, children, household, physical body and mental health taking a backseat to this. If I had more time this would not be causing me additional harm, but this seems to be how the NDS operates. You say one thing and then do the opposite, leaving participants confused and demoralised. And worse off in terms of wellbeing.
Very few people I know who are NDIS participants or are disabled are willing to even go anywhere near this submission process due to significant trauma obtained through NDIS interactions, or with registered providers who are rorting the system and harming us to line their pockets.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
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.
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 1793
This leaves participants and our families at risk of decreased essential supports, in
terms of assistance with self care as well as participation in the community. When
we are not visible in our local towns, which seems to be the point of this exercise, it’s
easier to shove our needs further down the list. What is not visible and part of things
is easily erased and devalued into isolation, which worsens health outcomes and
wellbeing, ultimately costing the government more as these health outcomes need
solutions.
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.
As an NDIS participant, this has already impacted me with current legislation, so the
proposed bill would make everything worse and more widespread across the
population. The requirements to continually prove (at significant personal expense of
3
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 1793
thousands of dollars for one of many reports) our lifelong and permanent disability
seem to have outcomes depending on what mood the person on the phone or over
email or whatever robot it is, is in. There is no basis of fairness or ethical truth. I had
many supports removed when proof that had been accepted, was denied. I was also
lied to and told that they had never been approved, which was completely untrue. I
feel that my accepted disabilities have been reduced to psychosocial so that I am
deemed an unreliable witness to my own life. I am well read, communicate clearly,
and find interacting with this system an absolute shit show. I have been advised by
many people to have as little to do with the NDIS as possible, to protect my
wellbeing. I have experienced significant breakdown that took months to regain
function from following my last planning meeting. The injustice of this system, the
whims of those in power, are doing significant damage to us. All we want is equity,
the assistance required to be part of our communities, and to live a life that’s decent.
Changing the system further to remove rights of appeal will serve only the bottom
line, and will lead to premature death and reduced functional capacity for NDIS
participants. It’s Robodebt all over again and it’s a disgrace.
People making choices about our lives should have lived experience of disability as
a minimum, not just be a public servant following prompts on a script. Interacting with
the NDIS has been completely dehumanising and will become moreso with this bill.
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).
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 1793
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 high- cost items will lose that ability entirely.
The impact of this on me is more insecurity, being terrified about not spending my money before it’s taken away, and equally terrified about spending it in case I get a “naughty naughty” phone call about misusing my funds. This has happened to me about items or tasks that were included in my plan, with freedom of choice. This intimidation tactic puts fear of surveillance and harsh judgements resulting in the taking away of not only my choice and control, but my quality of life. I am a parent and this trickles directly to my young children. When my supports are taken away, I suffer and they suffer.
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 1793
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.
This is another way to dodge caring for disabled people. If Doctor Dickhead invents a new treatment that costs forty thousand dollars for, say, amputees and the outcomes are promised to make a limb grow back, with skewed peer reviewed research, before accessing support from the NDIS people will need to come up with that sum of money and put themselves through harmful and money making so called “health care” circus before having eligibility. This example is hyperbolic but is born from the state of things. There will always be a way to prevent people from accessing support – why not just call it what it is. Eugenics.
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.
Submission 1793
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 supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
How can an assessment tool that we do not have access to possibly convey the
basic needs of all humans? Will it be similar to access needs in terms of communication that are routinely ignored by the NDIS and instead approached with spur of the moment “chats” that put a bomb in our lives? I have zero trust in anyone at any level of this thing, let alone a rushed functional capacity assessment tool that is not accessible to disabled people. If I was faced with more than ten minutes at a time of talking to a robot or a pencil pusher with no expertise in complex health and disability, I would likely become suicidal or experience psychosis. In itself, the tool is inaccessible and will harm people. Do better.
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
The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent 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
Submission 1793
no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible,
connected and safe.
Did you enjoy lockdown? Was it fun for you to stay at home, to never see other
people, to have no freedom to leave your residence to go to a cafe or attend an arts
event or go for a walk or post something at the post office? That’s life for disabled
Australians under this bill. You are cutting us off and leaving us to rot. Eugenics.
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.