Submission 2328 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

‹ PrevPage 1 of 9 · Source p. 1Next ›

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

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: 31 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 a current participant in the NDIS with severe psychosocial disabilities stemming

from permanent, diagnosed and fully treated mental illness.

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

1

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

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 it does not allow sufficient time for me to

obtain appropriate assistance in making a submission and for me to wait for a “good

day” to make a submission unassisted.

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

  1. 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, and in principle should not be changed for individual people or

according to non-transparent and irrevocable ministerial whim.

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.

In my own case, the Minister has expressed sentiments that reflect a changing policy

approach to mental health issues which is not reflected by current legislation, and

which could well result in reductions and changes in the nature of supports upon

which I rely for survival. These include meal prep, help with house-work practical

support worker assistance with my hoarding behaviours which are ongoing and

which I am unable to deal with on my own, as well as regular support from a qualified

psychologist. When I first received assistance through the NDIS, my only local

provider refused all services on the basis that the hoarding was a health and safety

issue for her staff, and these decision was only reversed when another provider was

2

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

first able to provide assistance on this particular issue. The travel costs of accessing

this support resulted in almost halving the budget that remained for accessing all

supports. Therefore, if the Minister was to decide to reduce or abolish this particular

support, or significant psychological support, either across the board or in my

individual case, it is reasonable to assume I would then be unable to receive other

supports in practice, as happened before.

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 previously had decisions reviewed about my access and subsequent agreed

supports successfully when NDIA decisions were made which went against policy

and legislative requirements. I am worried that the removal of review and legal

3

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

challenge avenues will mean more frequent reductions in funding for supports which

are essential to my survival, and which are driven primarily by cost-cutting desires

rather than by the necessity of those supports to my survival. Furthermore, the right

to review and challenge to unreasonable decisions is fundamental to human rights

and to democratic principles.

It is clear from the Minister’s public comments and speeches that he expects to go

ahead with removing more than 20% of current participants, whether not adequate

supports from alternative [State-based] sources exist and are achievable in practice.

Before I was accepted on the NDIS, I was at extreme risk of suicide, and indeed this

was one element the NDIA finding that my disabilities were severe enough to

warrant access. Suddenly, this appears irrelevant to the provision of supports, but I

greatly fear returning to the utter misery and despair of before, which was only

alleviated by accessing supports under the NDIS.

Finally, the Minister is on record about his intention of requiring “additional

treatments” for those accessing or seeking to access the NDIS under the

psychosocial category, even for those who have already satisfied the “fully treated”

and “permanent” criteria for access. It is already a problem that many people with

severe mental illness cannot access sufficient appropriate treatment within the health

and mental health systems, and that they frequently cannot afford these treatments

specifically because the psychosocial disabilities make it impossible to earn sufficient

income to cover treatment. To make these requirements even more onerous and to

create an increased and ongoing threat of removal even after all the hurdles have

been passed, specifically worsens the disabilities we deal with every day.

Exacerbating the real and well-founded fear of losing those supports which make it

possible for us to survive is unconscionable.

Recommendation: Require a LEGISLATED “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.

4

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

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.

For me, community access and participation supports make it possible for me go out

of my home, even in very bad periods, and without this the overall impact of my

psychosocial disabilities are multiplied. Furthermore, I live in a small regional

community where these kinds of supports are not available through voluntary

organisations, and where the availability of trained workers in mental health areas is

already severely constrained. Most volunteer availability is already taken up with the

provision of services that are taken for granted in the cities. There is no untapped

well-spring of volunteers.

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

5

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

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.

I was only able to satisfy the “fully treated” criteria by being able to access a

research program that was free for patients, but which no longer exists. This

required me to spend 2 days/week in Melbourne, which was a huge financial and

logistical problem made worse by my condition. I only managed it the end at huge

personal and emotional cost, and only because I was able to stay overnight with my

brother ever week for more than a year. This was a burden on him with my

heightened emotional and distressed state because of the treatment. In any case, it

would now be impossible because he no longer lives in Melbourne, and because that

relationship has broken down. One has to wonder how much pressure on the

relationship came directly from my inability to financially and geographically access

treatment in any other way.

In the case of mental health treatments, the Minister has already talked about

exhausting treatments that might reduce the impact of psychosocial disabilities,

which is the function of NDIS supports. There seems to be a somewhat deliberate

muddying of the division lines between treatments, and supports after treatment.

What was previously identified as a support which would help modify the impact of

disabilities resulting from a diagnosed mental health condition (which has already

been fully treated and is therefore judged permanent), is now to be identified as a

treatment that is used to deny NDIS access, even to those who have already

satisfied access NDIS requirements. Furthermore, the appropriateness of supports

can change over time for any individual, so defining them as treatments will

6

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

introduce new threats that someone who has already satisfied “permanent” and “fully

treated” criteria. Individuals will suddenly find that they no longer qualify for access,

precisely because the impacts of their mental illness change over time through their

lifecycle and as their personal circumstances change. This is nonsensical from a

logical point of view, but it will also result in the removal of supports from those who

desperately need 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 supports undercounted, with no

guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.

The way this affects my own situation has already been covered, above.

7

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

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

no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible,

connected and safe.

The reasons this is particularly crucial for myself and others with psychosocial

disabilities that stem from mental illness, have been explained above. Foundational

supports do not yet exist in my State of Victoria, and it is likely that there will not be

sufficient or even adequate funding available in the State Budget to provide

appropriate supports. This is even before one considers whether evacuees from the

NDIS will necessarily meet new access criteria for these schemes, or whether

appropriate and sufficient supports for rural and regional people will be available in

practice. These are already huge problems in other service categories, and I

experienced the problems of falling through the gaps in State provision before the

NDIS, which (as for physical disabilities) was and remains a major justification for the

NDIS itself. There is no reason to suppose that anything has changed, but there is

even less funding available.

8

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2328

I honestly believe that I will not be able to survive in this if I am made ineligible for

the NDIS, and if this happens I will return to the situation of utter despair and misery

and am unlikely to be able to resist suicide. The suicide rate is already much higher

for those of us with serious mental health conditions (and for those with my own

diagnosis) than for other social groups, and this unconscionable abandonment of us

can only worsen this suicide rate.

I do not believe a policy statement or stated intention from the Minister is sufficient to

ensure that current participants are left no worse off, even if such statements were

made (which I consider unlikely, in any age). In the face of what current and future

governments consider as budgetary imperatives, good intentions are worthless. A

legislated guarantee and appeal rights are the only things that will protect our lives

and very survival.

Recommendation: Legislatively require that no reductions to community

participation or capacity building supports, or to NDIS eligibility of current participants

take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and

demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.

9

PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026