National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2670
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
01/06/2026
I am an NDIS participant and I work part-time at a clinic that provides NDIS supports. I am writing to outline the harm this Amendment Bill is likely to cause if it passes Parliament. This bill is concerning this country’s most vulnerable and I do not believe that it has been approached accordingly; I believe it requires amendment and further examination before it proceeds.
The proposed bill allows the Minister to change who receives NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 & 9) and the funding amounts (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) without going back to parliament, whilst the rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8, 9) are yet to be written. This means that decisions with life-altering impacts for NDIS participants can be changed without parliamentary debate or scrutiny, and without advanced notice to the participants who may not know rules have changed until they experience the impact on their plan. Similarly, the Minister can reduce funding for any support/group of supports through an unchallengeable instrument (Schedule 1 Part 4). Participants face funding that can be cut without warning or right to appeal. This puts the wellbeing of vulnerable people into the power of unreviewable decision-making and decisions made without scrutiny. I strongly recommend that all decisions that impact eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation, with mandatory advanced notice to affected participants before changes take effect.
The bill also changes rules for existing NDIS participants to make it harder to challenge decisions about support and funding, restricting reassessment requests, removing review rights for automatic plan renewals and making funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Participants are facing restricted criteria while avenues to challenge decisions about their support are being removed. Especially in combination with the lack of parliamentary review articulated above, this concerns me greatly and does not protect individuals from potentially harmful plan changes.
Through my work, I have witnessed NDIS participants who have had their plans suddenly changed, and valuable support removed in their reviews without tapering off or suitable equivalent supports. Increasingly I have witnessed clients receive untenable plans that do not take their circumstances into account, and have to appeal in order to access the support they need to live a functional life. These experiences are traumatic and life-altering for participants. I have also seen practitioners forced into providing tens of thousands of dollars worth of pro-bono support to clients per their duty of care when clients’ plans were abruptly changed to remove that support type, despite advocacy from professionals. I do not believe that the NDIS currently has the capacity to make effective decisions about client eligibility and needs based on what has previously been demonstrated, and the lack of information available about rules that will determine eligibility thresholds and functional impact concerns me deeply. With the suggested changes in the bill, I foresee an increase in these kinds of situations. I strongly suggest including independent review rights and preserving access to reassessments in the bill. I also strongly recommend that current participants receive protection from harm safeguarding; ensuring they do not lose access to supports until equivalent supports are in place, and that supports are tapered off with
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2670
advanced warning rather than abruptly cut. Duty of care over participants who have had their funding cut by the NDIS should not be the responsibility of the provider.
I am an NDIS participant with an Autism diagnosis who, based on what has been described, I believe would be removed from the scheme in restricted eligibility rules based on NDIS-administered functional impact assessments. This is a source of anxiety for me, severely exacerbated by the lack of clarity about the changes. Since being able to access my supports, I have been able to increase my work hours, maintain relationships, live more independently, and study at university to pursue a career that suits my needs and future goals. The I-CAN has not been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability; I fear that the functional capacity assessment tool will be unable to take into account my history and entire profile, may not consider the impact of my current supports in improving my capacity, and ultimately would likely determine that I am ‘not functionally impacted’ by my disability. Without my funding, however, I anticipate my capacity will decline — I risk losing important informal support, becoming isolated, no longer being able to attend university, and needing to significantly reduce my work hours, leading to extreme financial strain and an inability to support myself. I believe there are many NDIS participants like me who would lose functional capacity to retain their jobs without access to funding, becoming dependent on Centrelink and income support.
I also have co-occurring Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, which has not been accepted under the NDIS. The lack of support for this condition has led to deterioration of capacity over time, to the point that I was until recently unable to write, cut food, or do most fine motor skill activities due to complications in my wrists and fingers. I have had to make cuts to necessary expenses like groceries in order to afford monthly physiotherapy, and fortunately had a family member capable of paying for my prescribed braces. Without this, I would still be unable to function or work. I raise this to emphasise the significance of the bill’s addition of the requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility (Schedule 1 Part 8) and the removal of whole-of-person assessment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Many people with EDS have already been refused access to the scheme under the previous requirements to exhaust treatment options, despite evidence that EDS can only be managed, not cured. The bill’s further restrictions on this will make access even more difficult for those in need of funding. If I had received the necessary support for my EDS when I first applied for the NDIS, I could have avoided the now possibly permanent impact on my fine motor skills, the incurred medical costs, the ongoing physiotherapy, and braces that I will now need to wear permanently. Now, changes outlined in the bill mean that I would be unable to get EDS added as an additional disability despite this change in circumstances, even though my condition is likely to continue to deteriorate without support. Additionally, I fear that if I lose funding for my Autism and can no longer work or study, I will no longer be able to afford the physiotherapy and other care I need to manage my Ehlers Danlos Syndrome at all.
The issues described above represent just some of the elements of this bill that I take issue with. Broadly, the bill represents abrupt, significant changes with limited consultation that will severely impact this country’s most vulnerable. The NDIS is in need of reform, but this reform should take place with more time, more consultation, and the needs of Australian people with disability — who, with the correct supports, are capable of contributing greatly to society and the economy — genuinely in mind.