Submission 2343
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 NDIS provider (psychologist), as well as a family member and sole carer of a 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 2343
The short timeline places intense and extreme pressure on people like myself who
are already struggling. The most vulnerable in the community typically have few
resources left to deal with the already highly bureaucratic elements of NDIS at the
best of times. Unreasonably short time-frames for consultation reduces the ability for
participants, providers and carers to participate in the consultation.
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.
This means that an already confusing and unpredictable system will become even harder to navigate, and much needed supports may not be available for my family member. In addition, I have already seen the negative impact that sudden and unpredictable changes have had on both my family and my clients.
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 2343
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.
After working incredibly hard to make to gains we have made, and access some suitable services, my teenager may have no longer have access to these supports. We have already had to challenge a decision relating to my child’s plan through ART on two separate occasions. We were successful both times. However, the length of the time without the support, strain on me and my child, additional time taken for numerous meeting etc., reassessment by NDIS clinicians, etc. was incredibly stressful and felt punitive. To then be at risk of losing these supports based on the proposed Bill feels sickening.
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 2343
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.
As previously mentioned, I have already had to fight for appropriate supports for my child with disability several times. The thought of having to battle yet again is overwhelming. I have already been operating at burn-out level for several years. To remove any avenue of challenging unreasonable decisions (particularly those that are against clinical advice) removes all hope, when I know that we already feel very hopeless.
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 2343
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.
One of the requirements to access the NDIS is that it is lifelong and permanent. Working in the area, I know I have had to provide evidence on numerous occasions regarding the permanency of a disability, and that it would not ‘get better’ with treatment. My teenager is autistic, and I myself have over 25 years experience specialising in the area of autism. I am very aware that there is no ‘treatment’ that can ‘cure’ autism. I am also concerned regarding who will be deciding what reatments’ are appropriate, freely accessible for all, and scientifically verified for all presentations of a disability.
A ‘single eligible impairment’ is deeply concerning and attempts to reduce people with disability to numbers rather than a person with a unique, individual profile and life experience. My child is complex in their presentation with significantly fluctuating demands, from requiring supervision and support, to full and complete assistance with tasks such as getting dressed and eating. You cannot understand my child through the lens of a single eligible impairment. I am also aware that many people with disability have multiple disabilities that impact on and compound each other. A single eligible impairment will not provide an accurate view of the person’s lived experience and needs.
Submission 2343
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.
With over 25 years of experience working specifically with disability, I am very aware that a single assessment tool is unable to adequately or accurately reflect a person’s abilities and/or needs. In relation to my teenager with disability, their abilities and
Submission 2343
support needs fluctuate substantially. I have spent many years putting supports and
scaffolding in place so that my child can have access to some experiences that their
neurotypical sibling can access. There may be the odd occasion where the full
supports are not required, but if they are not in place and available when needed,
there is a significant risk of harm to my child, as well as significant strain on myself
and my other child. It is imperative that important that any assessment is
comprehensive, and accounts for the whole person and their fluctuating needs.
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. This
assessment must be delivered by appropriately qualified and trained professionals, with significant experience with people 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.
Submission 2343
We have spent years trying to gradually build up social and community participation
for my child. Due to the nature of their disability, this has been a slow and gruelling
process. Substantial resources have gone in to building this into my child’s life.
Substantially reducing these supports means that we lose the hard-fought progress
we have made. This places my child at further risk of increased social isolation, skill
regression, and heightened dependence. This will also place even greater demands
on me as their sole carer with no informal supports. I have already been operating at
breaking point with ongoing carer burnout for several years. This places both my
c孩 and myself at risk of harm.
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
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the