Submission 2700
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
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 family member of an NDIS participant.
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 because as the family member of a young autistic child, understanding the full implications of this Bill requires time to seek advice, consult with support coordinators, and engage with disability advocacy organisations. A two-week window does not allow our family to meaningfully participate in this process.
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.
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.
My child relies on the NDIS for therapies, community participation, and daily living supports that are essential to their development. The idea that the rules underpinning their access to these supports could be changed without parliamentary debate or public notice is deeply concerning for our family’s ability to plan for the future.
Submission 2700
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.
As a parent, I depend on the ability to request reassessments when my child’s needs change — which they do, as autism presents differently across different stages of development. Removing our right to challenge decisions or seek reviews removes the only safeguard we have when the system gets it wrong.
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.
My child’s plan includes funding across therapy, community participation, daily living supports, and assistive technology. Our family carefully manages these funds across the plan year, and in some cases, we save towards higher-cost items. Losing the ability to carry over unspent funds — and having no right to appeal funding cuts — would significantly undermine our ability to meet my child’s needs.
Submission 2700
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.
Autism is not a condition that can be “treated” before accessing support — it is a lifelong neurological difference. Requiring families to exhaust treatment options before accessing the NDIS risks delaying critical early intervention supports that are proven to make the greatest difference in a child’s development and long-term outcomes.
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). 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.
Submission 2700
Autism in children can present very differently across environments and over time — a single point-in-time assessment may not reflect my child’s actual day-to-day support needs. Using an unvalidated tool to make life-altering eligibility decisions is a risk our family, and many others, cannot afford.
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. 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.
Community participation and capacity building supports are not optional extras for my child — they are central to developing the social, communication and daily living skills that will shape their independence and quality of life. Cutting these supports before any replacement is operational would leave our family to fill that gap entirely, impacting our ability to work, care for our other children, and maintain our own wellbeing.
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.
Kind regards,
Mother of 4 children with ASD