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.
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 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, 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 s \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
PWDATemplate: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
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 in 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
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
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
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
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
PWDATemplate: Submission to the 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 able 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
PWD Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
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
PWDATemplate: Submission to the 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 is 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