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

‹ PrevPage 1 of 8 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

1

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

  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.

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.

2

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 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

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.

3

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 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

4

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 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

‘treatments’ 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.

5

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 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

6

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 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.

7

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 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

child 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

NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026