Submission 2795
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
Date: 1/5/2026
I wish to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the NationalDisabilityInsuranceSchemeAmendment(SecuringtheNDISfor FutureGenerations)Bill2026.
I am the mother of a NDIS participant who has been on the scheme since it began in Victoria in 2018. Prior to that he was utilising a mixture of state and federally funded supports.
I understand that the NDIS in its current form requires review and amendment especially to deal with the rampart fraud throughout the system and conerns regarding eligibility and lack of foundational supports.
I am terribly concerned that the Amendment Bill in its current form will cause untold harm to my son if it passes Parliament. The Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it passes. I find it disappointing that in its current form far-reaching amendments are being introduced regarding participant eligibility, plans and plan costs while less attention has been given to fraud and measures to stop fraud. The two issues have been conflated for political purposes when they should be dealt with separately so that each are given the focus and discussion they deserve. The criminals and shonky providers are adept at employing lawyers paid for through ripping of participants. Whereas participants, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are totally reliant on the system and the good will of those around them to advocate for their needs.
PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY AND TRANSPARENCY – INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND RESPONSE
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, this is manifestly inadequate and allows insufficient time for appropriate consultation considering the complexity of the issues being amended and the ramifications for a vulnerable sector with diverse needs and abilities.
The short timeline impacts me because it gave me insufficient time to consult and understand the ramifications of the amendments. I have only had time to superficially look at the amendments but even this has raised enormous concerns.
Recommendation: For amendments to a complex system I think a consultation period of 3 months is warranted but a period of 30 days should be the minimum.
KEY DECISIONS LEFT TO MINISTERIAL INSTRUMENTS, NOT LAW
The issue: The Bill should not be finalised and passed until the critical eligibility thresholds have been written and reviewed via a community consultation process. The
Submission 2795
fact that the NDIS needs drastic amendment indicates during initial design and implementation there was insufficient consultation and review to ensure the system was fit for purpose. Adhoc changes without thorough review and consultation risk doing more harm than good.
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. It is unacceptable that the rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants: We are talking about the lives of vulnerable people. These decisions will shape the lives of participants and will determine whether they qualify for the NDIS, they will control the supports they receive and they could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. In fact participants may not even know that the changes impact them or will impact their supports or eligibility. The first they will hear of it may be when their plan is cut or closed.
Currently it is unclear to me if my son will be one of those removed from the system. On the scale of disability I consider him only mildly disabled because he is physically able but has a moderate intellectual disability which has a severe impact on his life. However, when I talk to friends and family they would describe him as severely disabled in the context of a normal person of the same age. It is crucial that the detail of the planned eligibility changes is available before any amendments are introduced.
If my son was abruptly removed from the system without consultation or an adequate transition process I would fear for his safety and well being. He would be at risk of hospitalisation and homelessness. It is all very well to say the disabled should be integrated into the community but the average community member does not have the time, patience and interest to make such integration safe or adequate. In extreme circumstances this will create an unsafe environment for the community and the ex NDIS participant. The ramifications of such changes need to be assessed and subjected to community scrutiny.
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
Submission 2795
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. If as has been suggested community participation will be reduced by an adhoc percentage 50% has been mentioned it will take no account the impact on an individual and the risk of harm. It runs the risk of further increasing social isolation and reliance on internet for social interaction which can increase marginalisation and any unsocial tendencies and foster an environment of resentment and persecution.
Currently I am aware of multiple situations where reports and assessments have been ignored and participants have been left with inadequate supports. Greatly restricting the right to review decisions will further entrench the current adhoc process of someone with minimal familiarity with my son’s disabilities deciding on a plan often without even reviewing the evidence, assessments and reported that have been provided. This could lead to life threatening situations and long term harm. It is essential an impartial system of review is available.
Recommendation: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to justified 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
This is terrifying! What if we have a minister who does not believe in science and secular society. They could apply religious dogma or personal biases or misconceptions to a whole sector of the disability community creating those who deserve support and those who do not. 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. Sometimes waiting times and lack of suitably qualified and experienced professionals means there are delays in spending funds. Allowing roll over of unspent funds allows them to be used for high priority, high quality services or goods rather than choosing to just use whatever or whoever might be available.
Submission 2795
Generally, for my son I have found most therapist/professionals working within the NDIS worthwhile and useful, however the greatest progress and gains come with working with professionals who have an interest and skills across the specific issues that impact my son’s life, intellectual disability, lennox gastaut epilepsy, anxiety, autism and avoidant restrictive food intake disorder. He is very rigid and once he has a routine in place, even an extremely unhealthy one, he fights change so it is better to delay and find the best support rather than just go with what is available at the time. Prior to the NDIS I spent years going through main stream supports that were manifestly inadequate. Their expertise is with the “normal” population. I found they lacked in depth understanding of his issues and looking back they did more harm than good. My son is trainable but he cannot change who he is or the way he thinks or how he reacts. Expecting him to use unspecialised mainstream supports resulted in further victimisation and additional harm. Being a participant in the NDIS and using specialised supports has been life changing for my son and us as a family.
Recommendation: Require that participants be able to justify why unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participant’s saving for high-cost items or therapy 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.
I do not understand the ramification of this but it concerns me greatly when individuals are treated on the basis of their disability rather on the basis of a person as a whole. Like many of the disabled my son has more than one condition and the ways these conditions interact has a huge impact on his functional abilities or lack thereof. Anxiety intensifies his autistic traits and his functional abilities drop dramatically when he is extremely anxious and his already small ability to problem solve disappears entirely and we are reliant on having well practiced routines and environmental scaffolding to keep him safe.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due
Submission 2795
to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments. Continue to treat the person as a whole.
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.
My son’s complex conditions intertwine so that he responds differently to different social and environmental triggers. It is imperative that assessment tools are informed by multi-disciplinary allied health specialists who are able to gain adequate history and data to inform such tools. His functional abilities vary dramatically depending on the situation and social and environmental context such that he is already often victimised because people believe he should be more competent and able than he is.
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 be surprised if a simplistic tool like the I-CAN used by a minimally trained person can capture the day to day impact and complexity of his vastly mild to moderately impaired intellectual skill set, anxiety, autism, inability to communicate what he is thinking or feeling. His human rights dictate that he should be treated respectfully as a whole person not just a simplistic score for his primary disability. I a normal society he is already excluded and marginalised. It would be devastating if a simplistic tool is used to further marginalise him and place him at risk of hospitalisation and homelessness by denying him adequate supports.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the diverse 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
Submission 2795
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.
Blankets cuts with no consideration for the safety and well-being of participants will vastly increase the risk of harm. This will potentially escalate costs to the health sector. Unplanned changes increase my sones anxiety to the extent that he can lose up to 1.5 kg per week and become so rigid that he is nolonger welcome in community sporting programs. If unchecked this will lead to hospitalisation and the need for 1:1 support during the difficult refeeding period. Mainstream programs are not capable of addressing his specific and highly individualised needs and in fact will just expose him to more harm and have the potential to expose him to a variety of previously unthought of self-harming practices.
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. Any cuts to community participation should be phased in with a transition plan to ensure that change is adequately managed.
FRAUD
Amendment of the system to prevent Fraud should be separated from amendment of the system regarding eligibility and program amendment.
There has been insufficient time for me to look into the fraud aspects of the amendment.
I am horrified by the stories I hear of rampant fraud and the inability of the NDIA and NDIS Commission to deal with fraudulent providers and workers.
I was horrified when my son’s providers accidentally billed my son twice and the NDIA paid them. I had to ask the provider and my plan manager to fix the issue. The NDIA obviously has no systems in place to prevent double invoicing for the same services on a set date for a single participant. It is no wonder that money is being hemorrhaged out of the system.
I would like to see the following issues addressed
Submission 2795
All providers should be registered or for therapists they should hold a professional registration All people running or deriving benefit from or employed in provider organisations including therapists should go through a NDIS screening process The staff payment system and awards should be adjusted so that staff are paid the appropriate rate for the time and hours worked – so if a shift crosses over between day time and evening rates then both rates are used for the appropriate part of each shift rather than currently the highest rate is applied to the whole shift. This leaves room for shonky operators to design shifts so that payments are maximised. Standardised invoice should be used for easy cross referencing and at a minimum include the date, staff members name, the start and end time of the shift, the staff to participant ratio, pay rate and the location of the shift. Brief but accurate shift notes should be mandatory for every shift There should be an onus on staff and providers to prove that the shift occurred It should be possible to ban staff or providers who refuse to provide information or refuse be interviewed on the grounds that they self-incrimination Given the unreliability of the participants as witnesses to lack of service delivery, the onus for proof of service delivery should be on the staff and providers. They should be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they undertook the full shift or delivered the service as stated.