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

Submission 1947

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 Date: 29/ 05/ 2026

I am a provider of allied health services to disabled people and their families in Victoria, and I am also the niece of an Aunt with a profound and complex disability who is supported by NDIS funds. Thus, I care deeply about the impact of the proposed Bill on the community and my loved ones. I am very concerned by the proposal and I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds. I will further outline my primary concerns by section below.

Schedule 1, part 4 regarding Section 34A- Ministerial powers, cuts to funding without appeal, and ambiguous thresholds.

Of most concern to me is the unprecedented powers that would be held by The Minister and the lack of certainty this brings participants. 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). Additionally, 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. Based on this Bill, whether participants qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know that supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.

These powers also impact participants on the scheme - For my Aunt, this risks further compounding decades of trauma, related to unstable and inconsistent care for her everyday needs, and safety. Before NDIS funding provided her with basic independence, the right to choose who cared for her, and sufficient funds to live safely in a home that met her physical and cognitive needs - she had been through the worst kinds of adversity like no-one can imagine. I am terrified for her that these changes will mean she will be sent back to the sub-human quality of living she narrowly escaped, and that she will also not understand why or how to adapt. The lack of clarity when fundings may change, and the lack of accountability on the Minister’s part and the lack of safety-netting embedded within the proposal is shocking and incredibly distressing to families and family members like myself.

There should be no ethical or moral reason why changes to participant funds can’t be reviewed by Parliament, a tribunal or other legal entity that can act on behalf of the vulnerable people like my Aunt.

Schedule 4 (subsection 8), Non-validated functional capacity assessment tool and absence of whole-person approach.

As a clinician with over a decade of experience and training in providing evidenced based support I understand the best-practise pathways towards assessment. Standardised assessment should always be validated both scientifically and statistically before being disseminated, however it also must be clinically reviewed to ensure suitability for the individual. This must always be conducted by a trained (usually Masters-level) and experienced health-based clinician. However, 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

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

Submission 1947

\n\nfluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate \nfor First Peoples with disability.

Additionally, the I-CAN assessment was originally designed to be completed by an allied health profession with sufficient \ntaining and knowledge on the subject of health, development and disability to produce a clinically valid result. However, \nin the Bill no qualification requirements have been established as to the prerequisite or qualifications of assessors \n(presumed I-CAN assessors), and section 8, schedule 4 seems to indicate that ‘indirect’ clinical judgement will be \nestablished through the training of unqualified NDS employees by allied health professionals.

Finally, the Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). \nRead together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must \nbe capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.

Request: I request that the Bill in its current form be rejected and any future bill be informed by genuine consultation with \nthose in the disability community and health professionals supporting the community. Please always ensure ethical principles \nof dignity, fairness and compassion underpin all debate and legislation that affects the disability community.

Regards, \n\n2