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.
1
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
- 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).
2
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).
3
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).
4
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.
5
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.
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.
6
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.
7