Submission 2217
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:
30 May 2026
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, as are several of my loved ones.
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. The Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is just over two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs. I note and appreciate the extension of the consultation period to June 1. However, the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
The short timeline adds unnecessary stress to a process that is already unclear and frightening. The short time frame requires us to read through a long and inaccessible piece of legislation, understand it and formulate a response without considering the fact that many disabled people (myself included) operate on crip time, and need longer to process information than our nondisabled peers. Disability aside, it is unreasonable to expect any community, let alone a marginalised one, to comprehensively respond to a legislative change of this nature in merely a couple of weeks.
Submission 2217
In my case, the stress and short time frame has caused an increase in my muscle
spasms and pain and interrupted sleep as I am preoccupied by what these changes
might mean for me and my loved ones. I have had to take time off work to manage my disability, and additional time off work to write this submission.
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.
These changes are not abstract for me. They impact my day to day life, and the day to day lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Unexpected changes to my supports will impact my ability to work and contribute to the economy, not to mention my wellbeing. I have my own small business, and only have the physical function to do that because I receive regular physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and support workers through the NDIS. Honestly, all these words feel futile. You haven’t listened to us or demonstrated meaningful understanding of what these budget cuts mean to the real lives of disabled people. I doubt a person will even read this. It will probably be AI – further insult to injury. But if there is a person reading this, I urge you to remember that anyone – including you – can become disabled at any time.
If the government really needs to save money, there are other ways, ways that don’t risk the quality of life and, frankly, the ongoing existence of thousands of disabled people.
Submission 2217
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.
I have been talking to my OT about applying for home modifications for over a year. The door to my apartment is heavy and extremely difficult for me to open on my own, especially in my wheelchair. I regularly have bruises on my arm from where I have not been able to hold the door and it has swung back into me. A remote controlled or automatic door would be so much easier and safer for me. But I am too scared to apply for the required modifications, in case this comes with a reduction to my other supports. I have heard too many horror stories from fellow NDIS participants to whom this has happened for me to feel anything other than fear.
A system that instils its users with fear of reprimand and repercussions is not benefitting the people it was meant to serve.
If I was scared before the announcement of these latest legislative changes, then I am terrified now.
Submission 2217
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 high-cost items will lose that ability entirely.
I had COVID in 2024. As a result, I spent almost 12 weeks predominantly in bed, using fewer NDIS supports than usual, only those that were needed to keep things ticking along. My need for other supports such as physio and hydrotherapy and transport did not change. Only, for a time, my ability to safely partake in them. Under the proposed change, the unspent funds as a consequence of my COVID infection would have been cut from future plans. A blanket rule of cutting funding for any support or group of supports without considering individual circumstances would dramatically reduce my quality of life.
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
Submission 2217
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.
A system that does not consider individual circumstances is not equitable. Instead, it will only further widen existing inequities. On a personal level, I have both physical and psychosocial disability and these interact everyday. You cannot understand the impact of my disability by considering my cerebral palsy alone. I also do not have family who live in close proximity on whom I can rely. Furthermore, I got into the scheme, as did everyone else, on the basis that my impairment is permanent. I’ve had cerebral palsy since I had a brain bleed at 6 weeks old, and I will have cerebral palsy until I die. Research shows that even with treatment and support (such as hydrotherapy and physio, which I access regularly) mobility of people with cerebral palsy declines as we age, and support needs increase.
I am lucky to live in a metropolitan area where services are plentiful. However, I am scared about what this will mean for my friends who live in rural and regional areas, or who do not have the privilege of being able to work a stable job and in some cases will not be able to pay for treatments that are far away and unaffordable. This proposed change essentially denies support to people who are marginalised because of their marginalisation – the exact opposite of the purpose of the NDIS.
For some people and some conditions, exhausting all treatment options risks worsening their disability and further reducing their functional baseline. This is unsafe and very dangerous, especially for patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS). Please, please do not do this.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate” treatment“ options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm
Submission 2217
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 supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
My disability – physical and psychological – fluctuates day to day, based on any number of factors. I fear that using an unvalidated tool to capture the impact of my episodic mental illness and my spastic cerebral palsy will not accurately capture the true extent of the impact of my conditions. For instance, on a day of high spasms, pain and fatigue, I struggle to walk without assistance, and on good days, I can walk short distances without assistance, with minimal pain, spasms and fatigue.
Furthermore, using an unvalidated tool is not a scientifically sound course of action and even the suggestion of doing so is an insult to the people with whom it is meant to be used.
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.
Submission 2217
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 no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
Among other things, social, civic and community participation support allows me to visit places with a support worker and my manual wheelchair which are inaccessible in my power wheelchair. It is my right and the right of all disabled people, to be part of the community and to have the support we need for that. Reducing this funding before appropriate foundational supports are in place will mean that I cannot visit friends, frequent bookshops or cafes or access physio and hydrotherapy with the regularity I need.
I look forward to the introduction of foundational supports, but I fear the impact of these budget cuts in the meantime.
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.