Submission 2680
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: 27/05/2026
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 a 57-year-old NDIS participant living in Adelaide, South Australia. I live with Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME), and MCAS — conditions that are permanent, progressive, and complex. Despite this, the most recent NDIS changes removed all Assistive Technology, and therapy supports for these conditions, leaving only my supports for Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety as they were considered my primary condition for acceptance onto the scheme.
These conditions have substantially and permanently reduced my functional capacity across multiple domains. I am deeply afraid to request reassessment to have my physical disability recognised again, because the likelihood of further cuts is high. I cannot afford the financial and emotional strain of fighting for essential supports that I rely on to live safely and independently.
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.
Submission 2680
Parliamentary ScruƟny 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.
I am adamantly opposed to the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026. My position is informed by my lived experience, extensive medical evidence, and repeated administrative failures by the NDIA that have caused me significant harm. This Bill would restrict access, reduce supports, and strip disabled people of choice and control. If passed in its current form, it will directly endanger people like me and many thousands of others across Australia.
The consultation period has also been unacceptably short. For people with fatigue-related disabilities, preparing a detailed submission requires far more time than has been provided. The rushed timeline excludes the very people whose lives will be most affected, making genuine participation impossible. My support worker has been instrumental in assisting me to produce this as an administrative task I could never do alone.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions leŌ 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
Submission 2680
changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know
supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.
Government agencies are expected to follow proper processes when making
changes that affect the people who rely on them. Why should the NDS be any
different? My needs cannot be decided by blanket rules — I differ from the next
participant, even if our plans look similar. My conditions significantly limit my
functional capacity and place a heavy mental strain on me every day.
I understand the need for responsible spending, but it feels like the burden is being
placed on participants instead of addressing the lack of oversight on providers. And
what happens when a new government takes over? Without proper consultation
now, future governments could make further cuts without considering the people
whose lives depend on this support.
We deserve to be seen as more than a cost line. Our lives matter, and we deserve a
voice in decisions that shape our future. How many disabled Australians need to
suffer or die before it is recognised that the NDIS is not a financial burden — it is a
lifeline that allows people to live with dignity and a chance at a better quality of life.
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 NDS participants and makes it
easier 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
Submission 2680
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 recent NDIS changes led to my plan being restricted from whole person to the primary psychosocial condition even though a detailed application had been made for my physical needs to be included.
I live with multiple conditions that affect both my physical and mental health. I am already distressed about asking for the assisted technology for mobility items and physio funding to be reinstated.
I do not have the means to appeal or go through the escalation process without it worsening the conditions I manage daily. The stress alone would intensify the symptoms I already deal with.
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).
Submission 2680
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.
Before I was finally accepted on to the NDIS, my life was at its lowest point. I had no support, my mental health deteriorated, and even basic self-care became overwhelming. Everything required effort I simply did not have, and without assistance I could not manage everyday tasks, including personal hygiene. For example, it could be up to two months before I could shower.
The thought of my funding being reduced/removed without warning terrifies me. I would have to cut my support worker’s hours and go without essential services. My needs have increased over the years as my conditions have worsened, and I cannot imagine leaving the house without my support worker. My community access funding also allows me to volunteer with a charity that gives me purpose. Losing that support would mean losing a core part of my life.
Without the right to appeal, I fear what will happen if vital supports are removed. The Minister should not have the power to make these decisions without consultation. I am not a number or a cost — I am a person, and I deserve to be heard.
Recommendation: Not allow the Minister to reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged.
Requirement to exhaust treatment opƟons 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 2680
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.
For me, I only qualified under a psychosocial disability, and the other disabilities were to be supported as a whole person using my goals.
These conditions have profoundly damaged my quality of life. I have not been able to work for years. While certain treatments might help me cope with tasks with support, nnothing will ever “fix” my conditions. My disabilities are permanent and will deteriorate — that is my reality.
So, if the NDIS expects me to exhaust every possible treatment before they continue my funding, I have to ask: at what cost?!
What would it cost my mental health?!
What would it cost my life?!
I live on a disability pension. I cannot afford expensive treatments that Medicare will not cover. So, after I drain every cent I have, what will the NDIA decide is “enough”? Would I be expected to try treatments that are unsafe or not recommended by world health authorities — just to prove I am still disabled?
On top of everything else, my specialists have warned me not to pursue certain treatments because they are highly likely to make my functional capacity worse. I am doing everything I can to continue finding affordable, sustainable options that might help me manage daily life, but as my conditions worsen, even those treatments lose their effectiveness.
Submission 2680
It should not be up to the NDIA to decide what a “reasonable” treatment pathway looks like for me. The only opinions that should matter are those of the GP and specialists who actually understand my conditions, my history, and the risks involved.
They know what is safe for me - the NDIA does not.
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.
I would compare this assessment tool to the one previously used in aged care - a system where the questions were so mismatched to people’s actual lives that those who desperately needed help were underfunded, while others who appeared
Submission 2680
able-bodied ended up with far more support than they required. It was inconsistent,
unfair, and blind to individual reality.
If the NDIS adopts a similar approach, the questions must cover every relevant area
of disability to the participant and be weighted according to each person’s
circumstances and conditions. There should be multiple shorter options for people
with cognitive difficulties — that are combined to create a full, accurate picture of the
person as a whole including in home options with support chosen by the participant
for people with stamina issues.
A functional capacity report is meant to capture a person’s limitations in their entirety.
How can the NDIS claim to assess people this way, then turn around and say they
will only consider a single condition while ignoring everything else? It makes no
sense. The Minister has said the focus will be on functional capacity, not diagnosis — yet the system still dismisses conditions that are not “coverable” under the NDIS,
even when they directly affect that capacity.
I depend on mobility equipment to move safely both inside my home and in the
community. I can stand for barely a minute before pain and fatigue overwhelm me,
and I can walk only about twenty metres before becoming completely exhausted. I
spend 16 to 18 hours a day in bed. A single medical appointment wipes out my entire
day. These are not fluctuations or rare flare-ups — this is my everyday life.
I have already lived through the consequences of losing essential supports. When my mobility needs were defunded, I was forced to overexert myself without the
assistive technology I was meant to receive, such as ramps and a mechanical bed.
Losing physiotherapy has further reduced my functional capacity and led to several
falls.
You cannot slice a person into pieces and fund them based on only one part of their
disability. My conditions are interconnected; they cannot be separated. My funding
must reflect my overall disability, not a narrow fragment of it. If I undergo a Functional
Capacity Assessment, it will be based on me as a whole person — my physical
conditions included, not just my mental health.
Submission 2680
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 and replacement system added
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.
How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut with no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
I volunteer for a not-for-profit charity that means everything to me. My NDIS plan even includes goals that support this — helping animals in need and having a support worker with me whenever I am involved in charity work outside my home. A portion of my community access funding goes directly toward this, allowing me to attend events and contribute in a meaningful way. This work gives me purpose. It allows me to offer what I can to those who need it.
The Bill’s proposal to allow the Minister to cut Social and Community Participation funding by up to 50 per cent is deeply alarming. My community access supports are not optional — they enable me to attend medical and therapy appointments that maintain what functional capacity I have left. The stress of this uncertainty has already worsened my mental health, disrupted my sleep, and triggered severe nightmares and fibromyalgia flare-ups.
Social and community participation is integral to my health. A 50 per cent cut would prevent me from attending the activities that give me purpose and help me get out of
Submission 2680
bed on difficult days. Removing them would accelerate isolation, mental health
decline, and physical deterioration — exactly what my clinical team works to prevent.
I also strongly oppose replacing individual supports with group programs. My
sensory sensitivities and unpredictable symptoms make fixed schedules unworkable.
On bad days I cannot leave the house; on better days I may only manage one or two hours before needing to rest. Individual, flexible support with someone who understands my needs is the only model that keeps me safe and engaged.
The prospect of further cuts at ministerial discretion is itself a major source of anxiety. Not knowing whether my supports will remain in place directly affects my mental health and my ability to plan my life. The NDIS is meant to provide stability and dignity — a system where supports can be reduced at any time does neither.
Without this funding — and without the core supports I rely on — I worry deeply about what will happen to my ability to contribute to the community. If I cannot volunteer, what purpose do I have left. How do I stop my mental health from spiralling when the only social connection I have is taken away. I do not have a supportive family network, and over the years my circle of friends has grown smaller because my conditions make it hard to maintain relationships.
The community access I have now is what keeps me connected. It lets me be part of something bigger than myself. It lets me feel needed.
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.
AddiƟonal concerns
- CHOICE AND CONTROL
Choice and control are not abstract principles. For me, they are the difference between receiving care that works and care that causes harm. I have established
Submission 2680
relationships with support workers who understand my condition, who know how to pace activities to avoid post-exertional crashes, and whom I trust. Building those relationships takes considerable time and effort — time and effort that I cannot afford to expend repeatedly.
Mandatory registration requirements that restrict my ability to use unregistered providers, including directly employed support workers, would force me to navigate aureaucratic registration system in search of a provider who might or might not be able to meet my needs. Many smaller, specialist, or flexible providers — the ones most likely to offer the kind of responsive, individualised support I require — are unregistered precisely because the registration burden is too high for small operations. Mandatory registration would reduce the pool of available providers and reduce the quality of care I can access.
If registration is to become mandatory, a self-directed category of registration must be included. People with disabilities must retain the right to directly employ and direct their own support workers. This is not a niche preference — it is essential for anyone whose support needs are complex, fluctuating, or highly personal.
2. HOW THE NDIS IS RUN
The Bill proposes to expand the NDIA’s powers to search participants’ homes, require production of information, and issue large fines. Given the NDIA’s demonstrated record of administrative error and inadequate engagement with participants, expanding these coercive powers without first addressing the agency’s culture of poor decision-making is deeply concerning. I have no confidence that these powers would be exercised with the care and accuracy necessary.
The proposal to allow automated or computer-generated decisions about disability supports is similarly alarming. My condition is complex, fluctuating, and not easily captured by standardised assessment tools. The assessments conducted by My Occupational Therapist were administered by a skilled clinician who could contextualise my responses, observe my functioning, and apply professional judgment. An algorithm cannot do this. An algorithm cannot understand how my
Submission 2680
mental health is affected by my Fibromyalgia and the cognitive fog that affects how I
answer questions about my own capacity. An algorithm cannot weigh the difference
between what I can do and what I can reliably sustain.
The proposal to impose a 90-day claim period is also of direct concern. Cognitive
fatigue is one of my primary symptoms. A 90-day deadline would disadvantage every
participant with a cognitive, fatigue-related, or episodic disability. It is a deadline that
reveals an assumption that participants are able-bodied administrators of their own
care — an assumption that is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the scheme.
- PLAN SUSPENSIONS
This is a genuinely concerning area, people stopped answering the calls of the NDIA
due to some underhanded means to “review” a participant’s plan with no warning
and no support during any consultation process. People talk about being blindsided
by NDIA and then getting emails after the call saying we have reviewed your plan
followed by cuts. This act alone has caused distrust among the disability community,
not to mention the lack of understanding and acknowledgement on the NDIA’s side.
When I receive an important phone call, I require my support worker/nominated
support person to be present so they can step in to assist me when my words fail as
my cognition falters and patience wanes. A phone call from the NDIS wanting to
check in, should be about care and genuine concern not a smokescreen for their true
intent, which is to find a way to reduce my support needs. It is these actions that
have been reported by other participants, which has led to calls being left
unanswered when I am alone.
Participants should be given the opportunity to address the NDIA at a time that works
for them with their supports in place. Rather than missed calls, alternative forms of
contact should be used for those with cognitive issues so they may be able to
respond accordingly without the fear of being suspended.
The change to the bill could see the stipulations being placed on participants where
the NDIA claim that they have “tried” to contact you, irrespective of no missed calls
Submission 2680
or emails to advise of these attempts. I cannot sit on the phone for over an hour
waiting for my call to be answered, so if I am unable to answer 1 call or even return
the call to talk to an NDIA representative, will I be automatically suspended as you
deemed that 1 call sufficient intent to contact.
Is it reasonable to assume that the NDIA would expect all calls from unknown/private
numbers to be answered despite the increase of spam related phone calls? What
processes are the NDIA going to put in place to ensure that all reasonable steps are
taken before pursuing the suspension (or revoking) a participant’s plan??
CONCLUSION
The NDIS changed my life. When I had access to the right supports including
physiotherapy weekly, my condition stabilised. I had capacity for social connection,
for creativity, for the activities that give my life meaning. That is what the NDIS is
supposed to do.
When those additional supports reduced, I declined. If reduced further, I dread to
think of what it will do to my mental and physical health.
The NDIS Amendment Bill 2026, in its current form, will make the system more likely
to fail people like me — not less. It narrows access, reduces supports, removes
choice and control, expands coercive powers, and embeds ministerial discretion in
place of individualised assessment. It does not address the administrative failures
that caused me harm. It does not fix the culture of poor decision-making at the NDIA.
It does not provide the certainty and dignity that disabled Australians deserve.
I urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill not be passed in its current form.
The NDIS must be strengthened — not diminished. Disabled Australians deserve a
scheme that recognises the complexity of their lives, respects their expertise in their
own needs, and holds the NDIA accountable for the decisions it makes. This Bill
does not do that.