Submission 2713
Date: 29th May 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 who lives with a disability. 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
(https://oia.pmc.gov.au/resources/guidance-impact-analysis/australian-government-guide policy-impact-analysis) says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
As an NDIS participant, I believe this Bill needs further scrutiny before it proceeds, as the proposed changes could significantly impact the supports I rely on. The two-week consultation period is not enough to ensure people with disability have accessible and meaningful opportunities to understand the changes and provide informed feedback.
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.
This would create significant uncertainty and stress for participants like me. It means important decisions about who can access the NDIS and what supports they receive could be changed without proper parliamentary oversight, transparency, or consultation with people with disability. Participants could suddenly lose access to essential supports or face changes to their funding without warning, making it difficult to plan for their care, stability, and daily living needs.
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
Submission 2713
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 bereassessed 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.
This would leave existing participants like me feeling uncertain and unprotected. If my needs change, or if my funding is reduced or my plan is automatically renewed without properly considering my circumstances. I may have limited ability to challenge those decisions. As someone living with disability, my support needs can change over time, and it is essential that participants have fair review rights to ensure they can access the supports they need to maintain their wellbeing, independence, and daily functioning.
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 participants 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.
If funding for community participation, capacity building, or assistive technology is reduced or removed without warning or appeal rights. I could lose access to essential supports that I rely on for independence and daily functioning. This would make it difficult to plan or save for necessary supports and equipment, and would significantly reduce my ability to participate in the community and manage my disability safely.
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
Submission 2713
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.
This would affect me because my support needs cannot be understood by looking at only one impairment. My daily challenges are shaped by the combined impact of my disabilities, and my needs should be assessed as a whole rather than through a single diagnosis. Requiring people to exhaust treatment options before accessing the NDIS also creates an unfair barrier. Many disabilities are lifelong, and participants should not have to keep proving this or complete unnecessary treatment just to access essential supports.
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.
As an NDIS participant, my disability affects multiple areas of my daily functioning, and these impacts cannot always be fully captured in a point-in-time assessment. It is important that assessments reflect my whole experience so my supports are based on my actual needs, not a limited snapshot.
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.
Submission 2713
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.
This would affect me because social and community participation supports help me stay connected, build independence, and take part in everyday life. Reducing this funding before any replacement supports are available risks leaving participants like me without the services that help us maintain our wellbeing and independence. These supports are essential for helping people remain engaged in their communities and avoid isolation. Cutting them without a clear alternative would place more pressure on participants and their families while reducing opportunities to build skills and participate safely in the community.