Submission 2364
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Date: 31/5/2026
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 an NDIS participant myself, as well as being a parent to two children who are also NDIS participants. Previously I have spent 20 years as a senior allied health professional working at a major hospital, working with many families who access NDIS services - due to my disability and the significant needs of both my children due to their disabilities I am no longer able to work.
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.
The short timeline impacts me by increasing the stress and anxiety about people not understanding and having time to discuss these changes with their supports, allowing a clear submission to be made. Extra time would have allowed me to more clearly and fully understand and explain the impacts this will have for myself and our family.
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.
Submission 2364
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.
These decisions have a huge impact on a significant portion of the population. Having a minister able to change the criteria and funding rules without consultation through parliament means there is no oversight to protect vulnerable individuals and the impacts will be felt through their quality of life. Also knowing these things can change without notice also increases the stress and anxiety felt by those with disabilities and their families, not being able to trust in the system year to year.
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.
The needs of all individuals, including those with disabilities, change over time. Having funding automatically rolled over without the ability to input about changed needs will lead to some participants having ongoing funding for a support that may no longer be required, while leaving many with funding that met their needs years ago but not now. We recently had a plan review and reassessment for my son - not only was his capacity building funding significantly cut (against the advice from all of the reports that NDIS paid for and required us to provide, but planner admitted they hadn’t read the reports) and no longer meets his current needs, the plan also contained a further halving of support for the last 3 years of a 5 year plan. This plan is for a 10 year old who is approaching puberty (a time well recognised as being challenging for all individuals, and highlighted in research as a period of significant risk for those with autism), transitioning into high school - how can an individual who hasn’t met the participant or read the reports decide he’ll need less over this period - the reports were evidence based, there is no research available to support automatic reduction in needs, especially at this young age where skills are expected to increase substantially, but those with disabilities often fall further behind their peers. The idea that when he reaches puberty we can’t request a review is ridiculous.
Submission 2364
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.
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.
I can accept that there should be some funding cuts in some areas, however this needs to be determined on individual needs not just automatically across everyone. Determining appropriate funding across different categories is why we have functional capacity assessments - so read them! Rolling over unspent funds I can see as unnecessary in some situations. Core support funding and even capacity building funding may not need to be rolled over, however funding for high cost equipment needs to be protected as it often takes many months of assessment and application before these funds are approved before an item can be ordered - which is ridiculous on its own as this equipment is needed sooner not later - to loose this funding at a rollover is not fair.
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 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.
The government has stated they are moving away from a diagnosis based eligibility to an assessment of functional capacity. This requirement clearly indicates that diagnostic eligibility will still exist prior to assessment of function. What is the government going to base its decisions on with regards to what treatments are deemed as required? Given that
Submission 2364
there are no identified medical treatments for autism, but therapy can definitely help, does this mean they must have trialled therapy before being able to access services - isn’t therapy a core part what NDIS provides.
What about all the babies who are born with severe disabilities each year, but identifying a formal diagnosis often takes years - how can they be deemed untreatable, what treatments do they need to go through before they’re eligible for the help they so badly need? How do these families access therapy and equipment which is essential for life without NDIS? Families cannot financially fund years of therapy and equipment, let alone how do they look after these kids 24/7 when they also need to sleep.
The cost of accessing ‘all reasonable treatment’ can be significant and for some this means it’s not achievable. It also isn’t all available especially in rural areas. I am on NDIS due to multiple longterm, severe mental health diagnoses. I am lucky and we have private health cover so I have been able to trial a huge number of medications individually and in combination, I have had many extended mental health hospital admissions - I couldn’t have done this without top level private health cover - during these admissions I was able to access rTMS and ECT (without successful outcome), as a health professional I was aware I could search for clinical trials and have participated in two without success - so yes I can say I’ve tried pretty much everything, but without my health background and financial ability to access private health insurance I wouldn’t have been able to achieve this. Add to this the cost of getting a diagnosis and report to confirm this is very expensive privately, and almost inaccessible through the public health system. Is there going to be a consideration on the cost and accessibility of whatever treatments the government decides is needed before being eligible, especially as those living with disabilities have much lower earning capacity, does this mean only those who can afford treatment can access support? And how is there going to NDIS suddenly more of an expert in all treatment options available for all diagnoses than the participants medical team? Not all available treatment options are safe for all individuals, and many are not readily available through public health services (or if they are available there’s years long waitlists).
I am concerned that the NDIS will also no longer recognise comorbidities and support these. Recent high-quality research consistently shows that autistic people are at greatly increased risk of mental health conditions, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts or behaviours (PLOS One, 2023; Volkmar et al., 2024; Lai, 2023; The Lancet Psychiatry, 2019). If this link between disabilities is not recognised and supported through NDIS how do participants access support. Already we find that because our children have autism diagnoses and receive services through NDIS they are unable to access mental health support through CAHMS as CAHMS states their mental health concerns are disability related and therefore should be covered by NDIS. NDIS on the other hand won’t fund psychology as we should be accessing public services. This change would make it harder to access services like psychology if NDIS choose not to recognise depression as a comorbidity.
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.
Submission 2364
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.
The government states:
The I-CAN is valid and reliable across all disabilities. However there is no published research which can confirm validity, reliability or standardisation when used with mental health conditions. The I‑CAN has been validated only for general disability groups (Arnold et al., 2015) and has not been psychometrically standardised on people with mental health diagnoses. National mental-health bodies emphasise that psychosocial disability is episodic and fluctuating (Productivity Commission, 2011; Mental Health Australia, 2018; National Mental Health Commission reports), requiring longitudinal and specialist assessment approaches (Rosen & Gill, 2012). Therefore, the I‑CAN may not accurately capture the complex and variable functional impacts of psychosocial disability. Recent research shows that people with mental health diagnoses frequently over-report their functional abilities due to impaired insight and inaccurate self-assessment. Studies demonstrate significant introspective bias and anosognosia, with individuals often believing they can perform tasks that objective assessment shows they cannot (Rose & Harvey, 2025; Montero, 2025). Given this it would be essential that assessors are highly skilled in mental health presentations especially when assessing those with psychosocial disability.
Additionally:
I’m concerned that the NDIS are intending to use assessor’s who do not necessarily have a health degree - the assessor’s will be trained in the assessment - so they may not have an understanding of disability and the interplay of disability on daily functioning. It is so important that the right questions are asked. There has been comment by the NDIS that assessors will complete the appropriate sections of the assessment based on diagnosis, thus not all impacts are likely to be identified. If you ask someone with severe cPTSD and severe treatment resistant major depression for example if they can walk the answer will most likely be yes - if that is taken as the answer for the mobility section it will miss the fact that actually yes the individual can walk, but can’t go out into community without support - so actually they can’t go to the shops and may not be able to access public transport.
The I-CAN aim in a single 3 hour long video interview to get a more accurate assessment of needs than the therapists and medical team who have worked with this participant for
Submission 2364
years. We already have thorough functional capacity assessments done by professionals specialising in this in consultation with the participant and their support team - NDIS insists on participants providing these at each review, but have admitted they don’t always (in my experience hardly ever) read them. Surely these assessments are far more thorough and accurate than a single 3 hour assessment by someone you’ve never met and who is unlikely to understand your disability.
Additionally for myself, and I suspect many others, an assessment by someone I’ve never met is extremely anxiety provoking, and when very anxious I often lose the ability to speak. Even with someone I know I doubt I could manage 3 hours in one sitting without becoming very dysregulated and most likely mute. If I can’t speak how does the assessor ensure they have identified my needs? At least with the current functional capacity assessments the assessment can be done in shorter meetings and your support team also inputs information.
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.
Being able to access the community is something most people take for granted. For those without disabilities going to the local shop to get ingredients for dinner, catching public transport to see a movie or even just catching up with friends are things they don’t even have to think about - they just do them. For many people with disabilities these same activities are challenging and need to be preplanned and organised with support workers. I can’t leave the house without a support worker (and am mostly house bound). Yes I know I can do grocery shopping online and have it delivered, but you never get to see new products or walk past something and think “hey that might work” so you end up eating the same thing every week. For many people the social, civic and community participation support allow them to get to the doctor, dentist or blood test. To go and see a popular movie (and yes the funding only covers the support workers time, not the activity) so they can interact with others around it can be an important social bridge. Most concerning to me is that those accessing SIL will lose a significant chunk of the funding that lets them participate meaningfully in the world - without this funding many will spend their time sitting in front of a TV as the level of funding in SIL doesn’t allow for one on one time to explore the interests of the participant. Would those without a disability accept this repeatedly for many hours a day with no choice - can’t imagine anyone would enjoy this, yet without this funding many people will be left with no other option.
Within SIL especially medication is also used to fit most times where people need support into the lower cost hours - this means that those living in SIL are regularly medicated to have them in bed before 6pm
Submission 2364
often until 8am the next day. I don’t know any non-disabled adults who would accept being put to bed before 6pm every day. There are no services in place to replace these support workers (oh and many participants will need a support worker to facilitate access to these group activities). Humans are social beings, it’s well known that isolation leads to mental health concerns, placing additional pressure on our already stretched health system. Quality of life comes into question if individualised supports are reduced.
Capacity building is one of the most important supports for me - I need the ability to access regular psychology to help me work around my disability and stay out of hospital. Over the past 7 years I’ve had 10 inpatient mental health admissions, even just the Medicare portion of these stays (usually a month) is huge - far larger than the cost of accessing regular therapy which has helped me remain at home the last 2 years. My children have both had their capacity building supports reduced - my sons first plan included good funding for capacity building, however he was deep in burnout and not able to effectively access these supports - so rather than forcing him and wasting NDIS funds we chose to only access one support during this time - at his next review his funding was massively reduced as we hadn’t used it, but now he is in a position to benefit from this support it is no longer available. So instead his skills continue to lag further behind his peers.
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.