Submission 2337
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: 31/05/2026
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 NDIS participant/person with disability.
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.
Submission 2337
The short timeline impacts me by reducing my ability to provide information and
review the proposals. I am using this template to make my committee submission as
reading through all the information myself uses energy and mental resources that
are in limited supply due to my brain injury.
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.
Living with a disability creates planning challenges every day. What I can do varies from day to day and I budget my resources based on priorities. These resources include time, mental focus, availability of support people and availability of funding.
When I’m doing this sort of mental juggling just to stay on top of general life I don’t have spare resources to check for any NDIS rule changes that may be affecting my plans and capabilities as well.
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.
Submission 2337
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.
When living with a disability you are already subject to conditions that change unexpectedly. Without sufficient or correct supports we are exposed to risks that are harder to mitigate or manage. The reality of my life is that a fall or other unexpected occurrence can change my ability and support needs at any time. I need to be able to get a plan review or explain why the automatic renewal is not appropriate at any time.
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.
Submission 2337
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.
This ignores the reality of lead times to get equipment delivered and paid for. If I need a high cost item added to my plan, I have to get an OT assessment and prescription and then a quote needs to be approved and then the item needs to be ordered. Any of these steps can take months. e.g. at the moment I don’t have a regular OT because the wait list to get an appointment in my area is currently over 6 months.
So even for “urgent” items a wait time between adding that item to a plan and actually getting to the delivery and payment step of over 12 months is not unrealistic.
There needs to be a way of preserving funds from one plan to the next.
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
Submission 2337
(Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that 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.
How do you plan to define “cannot be treated” and how can you assess support need based on a single impairment? I live with left hemiplegia, post stroke fatigue and emotional lability, as a stroke survivor of over 16 years now I know that many parts of my condition have improved over time (I’ve worked hard to achieve this), some have become worse (particularly during covid when access to therapists was restricted.), and I work very hard to maintain my current level of function, but there is no recognised treatment that will cure me, that’s why I’m eligible for NDIS. Also my various stroke deficits interact with each other and my environment so can’t be separated when assessing support needs or possible treatments. e.g. exercise programs are great for increasing strength and building new movement patterns but I need to balance that against the fatigue that results.
If there is a sudden change in accepted doctrine for treatment of long term stroke deficits, will I suddenly become ineligible for support because of a treatment I have never heard of previously and which may or may not apply to my particular circumstances.
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.
5
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
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:
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.
“I live with left hemiplegia, post stroke fatigue and emotional lability. My functionality varies not just day to day but also week to week, and very much depends on what activities and mental loads I have been doing. Some days I can work with my support workers to get things done, other days I have to sit back and let them do everything for me.”
So I am concerned about single eligible impairment assessment as well as fluctuating capacity.
I have already lost my category 1 parking permit because of the “new” standardised assessment criteria. I can usually walk more than 1km and don’t use a mobility aid, therefore the system says I don’t need a cat 1 parking permit. However, the end result of that is that I end up walking much further than I should to do my shopping
Submission 2337
which makes me dependant on support workers for more activities in the following
days.
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.
I use social and community participation funds to have someone walk with me when I’m walking longer distances on uneven terrain. I manage a large conservation covenant property, which requires me to monitor fences, tracks, weeds, native animals etc. and the best way to do this is to be out there in the environment. But to do this safely in an area with limited mobile phone coverage means I wait until I have a support worker able to accompany me in case something goes wrong. A large part of the area is not accessible by car, so walking/hiking is my preferred method of monitoring. This is also good for my mental and physical health.
Submission 2337
Without NDIS funds for this I would need to find someone to volunteer or pay privately which would mean giving up the job.
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.
8
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme