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 and via portal: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 1/06/2026
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.
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 I can’t type fast due to my physical disability. I was also busy living a good life: working, studying and spending time with my boyfriend. These are things my current NDIS plan allows me to do, but I worry future government cuts will be detrimental to my current way of life.
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.
NDIS funding has been a gamechanger for me. I love self managing my supports. The choice and control I have over who comes for my services and at what time is life-changing. I have flexibility and change according to my schedule and needs now.
Please don’t give the Minister powers to change rules whenever they like. These rules affect real people like me.
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.
It isn’t right. Reassessments and review requests need to happen when participants need them to. For example, my power wheelchair is 7 years old. It might break down before my next plan review. So I get quotes and trial chairs and my OT puts an AT request form in. It triggers a review before my next one is due. If the funding for the new chair is denied, I have a right to challenge that decision. Please don’t take away that right. Without a functioning wheelchair, I would be stuck in bed. I wouldn’t be able to live a good life.
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.
This is unacceptable. I use a combination of agency workers and private support workers to meet the needs of my disability. The private workers I directly employ are cheaper than what the agency charges. These savings allow me to pay a worker to travel with me if I want to go away. The Minister won’t be aware of my holiday plans and what I might be saving my funds for, like a trip for a family wedding. If funding is cut without notice or explanation, I would miss out on things that matter to me. I’d be devastated if you cut my funds and I cannot challenge it.
I also shouldn’t have to choose between opening my bowels and having a shower. Why not both? I need longer hours with a support worker to do both. Neither can be rushed. I don’t like taking 2 hours or more to get ready in the mornings, but it is what it is and I shouldn’t be made to compromise on my personal care standards due to funding cuts.
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.
My primary disability is from a rare virus called transverse myelitis. It resulted in my quadriplegia and inability to walk, but later a neurogenic bladder and bowel, and scoliosis. As I get older, I’m experiencing more muscle stiffness and joint pain. I need my funding to be flexible as my needs change, not from my original diagnosis in 1981 as a two-year-old. My disability has not gone away, despite many treatments. I want to get on with my life, not go backwards. I manage the issues well, like incontinence, spasticity, pain, scoliosis. Yes, some things have improved, but they haven’t and are unlikely to make my fingers work or legs walk ever again. This requirement will cause catastrophic and detrimental harm for so many people with multiple disabilities. You must look at the whole person and fund what they can’t do for themselves.
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.
Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN)
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.
Personal Statement:
I am a real person, with needs, hopes and goals. An assessment tool needs to be able to identify all the dimensions of people.
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.
The social and community participation supports I currently receive are vital to my
wellbeing and mental health. I enjoy meeting other writers at meetings and retreats,
attending bonsai meetings and workshops to share and learn about bonsai, and
seeing friends and family. I don’t want to reduce my attendance at these events by
50 per cent. I want to keep up my skills and knowledge of bonsai and writing in line
with my peers, not at a reduced rate. It would have a significant impact on my mental
health if my funds were cut with no alternative in place.
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.