Submission 2481
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: 30.05.2026
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 an NDIS participant/person with disability. I have been on the scheme
since 2023.
I want to outline some of 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.
Submission 2481
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 making it almost impossible for me to try to access and understand/interpret the proposed legislation, and as I am cognitively impaired and have very limited energy production, it has been very hard trying to find a way to respond, in the short timeframe, and with any confidence I will be concise and coherent. I do not have enough administration support to support me in doing this, and not enough legal understanding to interpret these policies effectively. I’ve had to push my limits to try to read and understand the changes (very obtuse!) and then try to make a response. These submissions never seem to amount to anything, so it feels like a complete waste of my physical and mental resources, but if I do nothing, then I will feel complicit in the harm these very obscure policies will create. I have to use varied access technology to listen, and then software to help me process and write a response. It takes many hours over many attempts.
*Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
2
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 2481
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.
It took me over a year to get access to the NDIS when I was completely alone, barely able to leave my bed, unable to clean myself or prepare food, and completely desperate. Even when I got access, my practitioners documents and recommendations were not considered and so I had to then fight to get adequate supports for over 2 years. During that time, policies have changed 3 times, significantly affecting my care and my ability to manage my therapies, aidive technology supports and carers. Even my plan manager and LAC and Support Coordinator have trouble discerning what I can and can’t access in way of support. Allowing these changes through without absolute clearification and proper parliamentary review and transparency is dangerous.
Transparency and integrity should start with the policies, not allow misunderstandings and surprise changes to plans. There are obvious holes in many of these policies that have clearly not been thought out.
3
Submission 2481
Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and\nfunding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full\nparliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants\nbefore any changes take effect.
Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge\ndecisions
The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes\nit harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also\restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for\nautomatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable\n(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\nsupports.
How this affects participants: This does not protect participants already on the\nNDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is\nreduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no\nability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get\nextra support when their circumstances or disability change.
I lost my 2.5 year appeal because the ART was overwhelmed with too much\ninformation submitted and I couldn’t get legal support to represent me and the\n 4 PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 2481
member found me too unconcise and emotional. It was a very lazy outcome. iwas heartbroken and am still trying to recover from the decline in my function after the impact of the effort that went into the appeal, and the impact of the loss and what that means for my safety, function and independence (nowhere near optimised). 10 months later I’m still trying to recover and prepare another review. I have no choice, I need more support. This policy will mean I cannot file it. Which means I won’t get the support I need (supported by my practitioners). But unlike me, most people who put in for review WIN their case at ART. About 80%. So removing the right to appeal is clearly a stunt to stop people getting the support they actually need. If the NDIA was forced to actually read reports and recommendations, and fight without lawyers (a huge waste of taxpayer money, while participants mostly can not get legal aid - while every criminal somehow does… 🤷🏽♀️) there would not be so much need for review anyway. Again, the administration implementation and staff requires an overhaul far more than the participants require admonishment. Not being able to submit request for review means the NDIS can continue to not provide appropriate support, despite evidence, and continue to just do what they want, whilst participants suffer due to lack of supports.
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
Submission 2481
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 have 15hrs a week of core support (funds for support workers). About half is allocated for daily living support and half for community and social. My FCA has always recommended atleast 25hrs a week, and the bureau of statistics recommends about 47hrs per week for someone with my impairments. I would have been very grateful for 25. It would still limit me, but it would allow me to actually use some funds to access community regularly (like church, and a hobby), and actually see friends and family (currently able to use funds to manage one or two visits a year). Almost all my funds are ACTUALLY used in daily living support, not community and social. If this policy passes, it means I could lose half of my support worker hours, which are already not enough. I, such as many with severe physical impairments, use almost all my funding for basic daily living tasks and home support. There is already not enough for being part of my community, or maintaining family or friendships. Losing what I already have would be devastating and dangerous. As it is, I’m able to shower once a week and have my hair washed once a week and if I’m lucky, I get my lower legs shaved once a fortnight. I can’t get to many therapies and appointments, or family or friends because i was denied transport support. I’ve lost the funding for psychology and dietary and many forms of physio because
Submission 2481
the decision makers are too incompetent to read and understand the direct requirements of my impairments of my accepted diagnoses. My condition has declined cognitively, gastro wise and pelvic function wise among other ways since my funding use was restricted. Giving the NDS the ability to continue to further cut funding because they aren’t willing to read reports and are only interested in budget cuts over actual working systems will continue to cause my function to decline, and my mental health, quality of life and will go live with it.
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
Submission 2481
circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.
This is just not how most severe disabilities work. I have access for three severe diagnoses with vast impairments with complex interplay. I already have supports denied for what I have access for under even the current policy. How much worse could it possibly get with this stricter policy. I had an idiot tell me my height had nothing to do with my disability and he rejected a wheelchair and sit-to-stand chair, because they were customised to my height (6ft4). It is absurd to think that our whole dichotomy is not considered when our funding and supports and needs are “considered”. I can not be smaller. I cannot physically fit in many smaller “standard” assistive technology items. It’s just a fact. Why am I being penalised for it, and barred from access to much needed accessibility items? It’s discrimination and severely impacts my ability to optimise my independence safety and function. I honestly am still completely gobsmacked by the stupidity of this policy, and the elitist privileged tools who think it’s reasonable in the world of disability. You also need to fix the fact the NDIS administration conveniently “lose” accepted diagnoses terrifyingly regularly, and participants don’t even realise their main impairment has been changed or lost from the system, until they’re penalised or accused of fraud for mis-spending because they’re spending on things unrelated to their accepted condition. I’ve been fighting for 2 years to get them to fix my own. I have signed access documents listing all three conditions, but they won’t fix it into the system. Why are issues like this being left broken?
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant
Submission 2481
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. This absolutely terrifies me. They already don’t read reports from qualified and experienced practitioners with relationships with participants. Who in their 9
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Submission 2481
right mind would consider a meeting of a few hours (I assume conducted over the phone or zoom as I can’t get to in-person appointments due to my disability and lack of transport funding), with a complete stranger, who has no allied health qualifications, no medical training, and isn’t going to see own homes, our whole person, or how we function IN the world.. how is that person going to make the right decisions about our needs in such a short space of time? I have severe cognitive impairments (verbal delays, delayed processing, short term memory problems, word forgetfulness, severe energy production dysfunction, auditory processing disorder and generally very severe fatigue and brain fog). Expecting me to be able to explain everything I need in one three hours sitting with someone not trained to ask me the right questions for my particular disabilities and who has never seen me try to function in the world is stupid, and incredibly disrespectful, and terrifying. The administration already don’t listen. They already don’t fix mistakes they make, they already send every review request to ART instead of rationally explore requests. I can NOT believe anyone with a brain and a conscience could condone this tool, when robodebt (created by the same fools) was such a disaster, and their current system is already so incredibly flawed by either the world’s most extreme case of whole office weaponised incompetence, or just complete lack of care. You can’t seriously think the people who are making life damaging mistakes already, are going to do a better job with a proven flawed tool, and their already careless lack of integrity or concerns.
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. And hire staff that are trained in allied health (not social workers, but physios, OTs etc). By all means create a standard list and template for review reports and access documentation, from qualified professionals, not
Submission 2481
administration Muppets who don’t know what they’re doing and don’t care about the impact! First port of call, hire professionals, read reports from particpant practitioners and then create the individualised plans that always should have been created.
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 have autism, but I don’t consider it a disability and am not on the NDIS for autism. I have access for 3 severe permanent disabilities that have destroyed my life progressively. I’ve done everything I can to remain as independent and functional as possible, but I now simply cannot live safely without a lot of
Submission 2481
support. I have no partner, no family close by, and have burnt out most friendships due to my high support needs. I live alone. I tried to get into a nursing home many years ago, but was declined due to being too young and not having enough money to be there. I am now in a state unit, and on a disability pension and on the NDIS. But I don’t feel safe. I am terrified, that due to new policies and flawed administration, I will be one of the many who gets dumped from the NDIS because some administrator doesn’t understand my diagnosis and decides on a whim that I don’t belong. And there is nowhere else for me to turn. I spent 15 years trying to get by alone, and only turned to the NDIS when I’d deteriorated so significantly, that there really was nowhere left to turn. So I can also imagine how terrified all the people on the NDIS for mental health issues are feeling, when they seem to be the greatest target for being exited from the NDIS, whilst there is nothing actually in existence to support them without it. Because for me there is not. And I don’t trust one word of the “there will be” because I’ve spent 15 years falling through the cracks, with PHYSICAL disability.
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. For a start, you need to build all-age and youth nursing homes, hospices, and disability villages (like retirement homes and villages depending on the level of support required). I love my little home and I’ve worked hard and invested deeply in making it as safe and functional as possible. The NDIS seems to work against me which is exhausting, but I’d rather die than give up my home. But 15 years ago, and even 4.5 years ago, I would’ve gratefully moved into a nursing home or village. I was bedridden and unable to even type/write, brush my teeth/hair or hold a book. I will fight to keep it. And continue to fight to make it as safe, independent and functional as possible, with whatever assistive technology I can find to bridge the gap
Submission 2481
between my dysfunction and regular function. As for my therapies and supports, I’ve already had three cut from my plan, and I’ve only been able to keep one partially, which is proving almost ineffective due to not being able to afford to use it enough, and the other two are completely unattainable without NDIS support. But this policy acts like there’s adequate mental health support from 6-10 subsidised sessions a year, and a whole 5 subsidised allied health visits a year. What an absolute joke. Clearly none of these people have been financially impaired and permanently disabled.
Lastly - I have used a base template from a disability organisation to help me manage putting this together, but much of it is personalised obviously. It has taken me a full 2 weeks to manage to put it together. I know it’s not enough. But I can’t seem to do any better. And I’m so exhausted and now run out of time and have to submit. I am so incredibly disappointed in the way this government has chosen to see and treat people with disability. Literally anyone can become disabled. I’ve never smoked or done drugs, I’ve lived a healthy and clean lifestyle and been a working and tax paying member of society most of my adult life. I finished school, got a trade, went to church, paid my bills, kept fit, loved being part of community… And then because I have shitty mysterious genetics, I got sick and started losing everything , despite spending every cent and favour I had on trying to find answers and then solutions and then bridge the gap. I lost the fight. Now, its all about fighting to get the right support to get stable and stay stable and then be content and find a way to have a quality of life and be part of the world with meaning. The NDIS is supposed to do that. It’s supposed to work with me so I can do that. Instead, I’m treated like a leach and a criminal. I’m treated like I’m the one that sets the rates for allied health and support workers, instead of the one squeezing every cent out of every funding dollar to try to maximise my supports and optimise my function, safety and independence. But even the most economical solutions I come up with are instead treated as if I’m trying to
Submission 2481
rort the system. It’s the worst gaslighting and misuse of power I’ve ever witnessed. And it breaks my heart and kills the hope I have for having a future.
I am terrified of needing to turn to VAD if these policies that make no sense, are not transparent, and are used cruelly instead of appropriately just keep coming. I spend a lot of time trying to feel worthy of living. The NDIS is supposed to support us. But I feel like I deserve to die, and that’s what they want us to do. Please please please stop this hateful rhetoric and these policies that will be used to further inhibit safety, function and independence, and completely destroy autonomy and choice and control. The cruelty needs to end.
Please consider.
14
PWDA Template: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme