Submission 2766
Thanks for giving us 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 will say that the consultation time period that you have provided is deeply inaccessible. As someone with an energy limiting disability that makes executive functioning and accessing computers, writing, and thinking difficult, it feels as though there is already a massive lack of consideration to my actual, material needs.
Looking further into this I have found that the consultation period according to the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis should occur for a minimum of 30 days. How does anyone expect for the amount of feedback and consultation necessary to occur within 2 weeks?
Recommendation one for your consideration: according to best practice, the consultation period should be no less than 30 days.
Now I will continue on to outline the real, material harm and massive detriment this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament in its current form.
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
- 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:
I had to fight very hard, using what minimal resources I have for over a year and a half to get on the NDIS. I was unable to work, barely able to get out of the house and see anyone. Trying to access any level of assistance and care became, essentially, my life. That is a miserable existence.
If it had been any harder to access the NDIS, I would have taken my own life. I now have very minimal supports on the NDIS - occupational therapy, 3 support worker hours a week and a psychologist. Though small, they have changed my life massively and have been instrumental in my ability to access society again.
Living below the poverty line (as Centrelink payments are) should not mean someone is not worthy of support. A government must provide for their most vulnerable. My OT is currently in the process of trying to help write up recommendations for further support. I am terrified that this current bill will take this away.
And what about people who are unable to access literacy like myself? Who are too sick to write a response to this Bill? How will their access to society be affected?
Is it worth the casualties that may occur to hypothetically stop misuse of funding?
Submission 2766
Recommendation two for your condsideration: 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.
Key point: Listen to disabled people and their carers!
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 people like myself or my loved ones who are already on the NDIS. I have multiple disabilities and even then I fear being reassessed under stricter rules and what might be changed if only my primary disability is considered. If my funding is reduced or my plan not renewed automatically and I don’t have the ability to challenge that decision - what on earth am I supposed to do? This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
Recommendation for your consideration: 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.
This means things like wheelchairs, assistive technologies that are very expensive, may be out of reach for people like myself. I may not be able to travel a further distance with my support worker, as I won’t have the hours or funding saved for time and fuel. The rigidity is suffocating.
It feels like an attempt to make disabled people’s lives smaller, and less public. To group everyone with the same disability as having exactly the same needs, and deciding accordingly. Disability is so individual, and each one exists within a broad spectrum of both comorbidity and symptom variation. You cannot decide, for example, that autistic folks no longer require support at a certain level, or because of a certain presentation.
Submission 2766
Recommendation three for your consideration: 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. Treat us as individuals.
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.
Again, I would have taken my own life if I had needed to exhaust every treatment option. I already had drained so much of my savings and energy from trying to get a diagnosis eligible for assistance under the NDIS, as my other disabilities were not considered ‘enough’ (despite causing my to be bedridden often and lose consciousness frequently).
People already need to exhaust every treatment option to access Disability Support Pension, which is excruciatingly difficult. Don’t change the NDIS to be the same thing, or where are disabled people meant to turn when they cannot afford it?
Recommendation four for your consideration: 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.
Submission 2766
My dear friend’s mother has MS as well as existing other mobility issues and mental health issues. She is very stubborn and strange around accepting medical help and accurately reporting her needs, being older, having mental health concerns and working as a nurse for many decades.
If this was implemented, she would not be able to receive the intensive support work and assistive technology she requires to do things like eat or go to the toilet.
People need to be assessed wholly, individually and over time to see what they actually need.
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, 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.
Some people will need these support for life. Some will need them for a shorter time. You cannot expect people to need supports less over time without giving them the adequate support in the first place to prevent deterioration!
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.