Submission 2020
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDS 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 May 2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the Na#onal Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Genera#ons) Bill 2026.
I am the carer of an NDIS participant who is a person with disabilities.
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 impacts me because the short consultation timeframe disproportionately disadvantages family carers. As a sole parent and full-time carer, I am already managing extensive caring responsibilities, appointments, paperwork, advocacy, and day-to-day support needs. Finding the time to locate, read, understand and respond to complex legislative amendments within a compressed consultation period requires sacrificing time that would otherwise be spent providing care. Meaningful consultation requires more than simply making a submission process available; it requires ensuring that those most affected by the proposed changes have a genuine and realistic opportunity to participate. The current timeframe fails to recognise the realiIes faced by carers and risks excluding many of the voices the NDIS was designed to support.
The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis states that consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible. The consultation period provided for the Amendment Bill falls well short of this expectation and has limited the ability of NDIS participants, families, carers, advocates and disability organisations to properly consider and respond to the proposed changes.
Recommendation:
Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Submission 2020
Key decisions le6 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 criIcal eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been wri’en.
How this affects par%cipants: The decisions that shape the lives of parIcipants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scruIny. ParIpicpants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed unIl their plan is affected.
Leaving important decisions to ministerial instruments rather than legislation creates uncertainty for my daughter and our family. Supports that are essential to her participation, development and independence could potentially be changed or restricted in the future without the same level of parliamentary scrutiny, making it difficult to plan for her long-term needs.
As a full-time carer, I rely on clear and stable rules to make decisions about therapies, supports and future planning. When key aspects of the NDIS are determined through ministerial instruments that can be amended more easily than legislation, it increases uncertainty and anxiety for families already managing significant caring responsibilities.
Recommenda%on:
Require that all decisions affecIng NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislaIon subject to full parliamentary scruIny, with mandatory advance noIce to affected parIticpants before any changes take effect.
Exis/ng par/cipants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions
The issue: The Bill changes the rules for exisIng NDIS parIcipants 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 automaIc plan renewals, and makes funding reducIons unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restricIions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automaIc plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reducIons (Part 4), exisIng parIpicpans face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.
How this affects par%cipants: This does not protect parIpicpants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automaIcally, 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.
Submission 2020
As the full-Ime carer of a child with significant disability-related support needs, I am concerned that my daughter could be reassessed under more restricIve criteria and lose access to supports that are criIcal to her learning, development, safety and community parIpicipation. If her funding is reduced or her circumstances change, it is essenIal that we retain the right to seek a reassessment and have access to independent review processes to ensure decisions are fair and based on her individual needs.
Recommenda%on: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current parIcipant 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 par%cipants: A parIicipan`s community parIpicipation, capacity building or assisIive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. ParIcipants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability enIirely.
As the sole parent and full-Ime carer of a child with complex disability support needs, I rely on the flexibility to manage funding across the life of a plan and save for larger expenses when they arise. The ability for funding to be reduced without any right of appeal, combined with the loss of carry- over funds, would create significant uncertainty and could leave my daughter without access to supports, assessments, equipment or therapies that are essenIal to her development, paIticipation and well-being.
Recommenda%on: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for paIticipants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reducIon takes effect.
Requirement to exhaust treatment op/ons before eligibility
The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment opIions 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 consideraIon (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that
Submission 2020
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 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.
As the parent and full-time carer of a child with genetic variances, autism, ADHD, intellectual disability, anxiety and other complex support needs, I am concerned by any requirement that a person must first exhaust treatment options before being eligible for disability supports. Many disabilities are lifelong conditions that cannot be cured and treatments may be unavailable, inaccessible, prohibitively expensive, have significant side effects or provide only limited benefit. Families should not be required to prove that every possible treatment has been attempted before they can access the supports needed for a child to participate safely and meaningfully in daily life.
I am also concerned about the move away from whole-of-person assessment. My daughter’s disability-related needs do not arise from a single diagnosis but from the combined impact of multiple conditions interacting with each other and with her environment. Assessing supports against only one eligible impairment risks overlooking the cumulative effect of her disabilities and may result in support needs being significantly underestimated.
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
Submission 2020
through a point-in-Ime assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
How this affects par%cipants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over Ime, a parIcipant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
As the parent and full-Ime carer of a child with complex and interacIng disabiliIes, I have seen firsthand how her presentaIon can vary significantly depending on the environment, demands placed upon her and her level of anxiety. Any assessment tool used to determine eligibility, or support needs must accurately capture the full impact of her disability over Ime, not simply how she presents during a single assessment, otherwise there is a significant risk that essenIal supports will be denied or underfunded.
Appropriate assessment is criIcal because my daughter’s disability affects many areas of her life and her needs are not always obvious during a single assessment or on a single day. If an assessment tool fails to capture the cumulaIve impact of her auIsm, ADHD, intellectual disability, anxiety and communicaIon difficulIes, there is a real risk that her support needs will be underesImated, resulIng in reduced access to the supports she requires to parIcipate safely and meaningfully in daily life.
Recommenda%on: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the funcIonal capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to idenIfy the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuaIgn 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 parIpicipation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily acIviIies by 10 per cent for all parIpicpants, reducIons that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The FoundaIional Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementaion date and is not yet operaIonal.
How this affects par%cipants: Supports that help parIpicpats connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibiliIes and no addiIonal support. These supports are ojen what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
Submission 2020
For children like my daughter, community participation and capacity-building supports are not optional extras; they are essential supports that reduce social isolation, build functional skills and support long-term independence. Cutting these supports before Foundation Supports are fully operational risks leaving families to absorb the gap, increasing carer burden while reducing opportunities for children with disability to participate meaningfully in their communities.
My daughter is still young, and the supports she receives now help build the skills, confidence and independence that will reduce her support needs in the future. Reducing these supports before alternatives are available risks undermining years of progress and may ultimately increase long-term costs for both families and the disability support system.
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.
Thank you for your consideration.
29th May 2026
6
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS