Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 31/05/2026
I request that my name and contact details not be published.
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/person with disability. I was completely house-bound before I was state referred onto the NDIS for psychosocial disabilities. The NDIS did not give me a life of luxury, but for a brief and beautiful moment in time, it gave me a life worth living.
It is immeasurably cruel to have given so many people a taste of what our lives could be like, only to take it away. It is crueller even than never having that support to begin with - because now we have something to compare it to.
I want to outline some of 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, or it will actively and immeasurably harm Australia’s most vulnerable population.
Please do not forget that we are individuals - not just “the disabled”.
I also implore the Senate to refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities - of which Australia became one of the original signatories. It is
unconscionable to pass a Bill that contravenes, for example:
Article 4 - General obligations
- States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without
discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties
undertake:
a) To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention;
b) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination
against persons with disabilities;
c) To take into account the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities in all policies and programmes;
d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity
with the present Convention.
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, combined with the sheer length and complexity of this bill,
excludes me and many other people with disabilities from being able to fully engage,
if at all. It turns an already overwhelming and difficult process into one that is
effectively inaccessible to those with limited capacity. If it were not for the assistance
of advocacy groups, I would have been entirely precluded from making a submission
at all. As things stand, I have been unable to address the majority of the Bill, but the
timeline has forced me to choose between submitting something, or submitting
nothing.
Recommendation: Extend 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.
This does just not impact our quality of life, it puts our very lives at risk.
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.
For adults who have stable needs this is more reasonable, however many conditions are inherently degenerative and/or fluctuating in nature. Timely intervention is crucial in the context of slowing the rate of decline, and minimising the risk of injury or worse.
While changes like this may save money in the short term, the medium to long term
costs can only rise exponentially.
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 an enormous and extremely dangerous over-reach of power that should not be granted to any singular Minister. Especially a Minister that has shown a fundamental misunderstanding as to what the social, civic and community funding category is primarily used for.
This funding category is not just vital for participants to be able to hold jobs, attend studies and participate in volunteering - it is also required by participants to attend anything outside the confines of their home. It includes vital activities such as attending medical appointments, getting medications etc. It also critically allows us to not be totally isolated.
There have been numerous studies done that consistently prove that persons with disabilities are at greater risk of suicide, and that this risk can only increase when compounded by loneliness, social and community isolation, and burdensomeness. (See Annexure A: Suicide deaths among people who used disability services
Most of us already have insufficient funding to even use this funding for non-crucial activities. Arbitrarily making sweeping cuts like this is making us choose between getting food or getting medication, attending appointments that maintain our functional capacity or contributing to society.
It is not just that many disabilities are inherently fluctuating in nature, it also that many are degenerative. Just because the NDIS has not reassessed a participant’s plan, does not mean that participant’s functional capacity and/or circumstances have remained the same.
This proposal is especially concerning when combined with the proposed restrictions on reassessments (s48A). It is putting participants health, safety, wellbeing and even very lives at risk for extended timeframes.
Additionally, strengthening the “use it or lose it” mentality for funding does not encourage conservative funding usage, it removes all incentives for participants and providers to reserve funding in anticipation of fluctuating capacity or additional one off expenses.
Recommendation: Require that all unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for
participants saving for high-cost items, or times of increased support needs and
require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.
Require all funding decisions to remain on an individual case-by-case basis.
Require all aspects of the Bill to comply the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities. For example:
Article 12 - Equal recognition before the law:
-
States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law.
-
States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.
-
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.
-
States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in
accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that
measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and
preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are
proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time
possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and
impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the
degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests.
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 have had specialised testing done that scientifically proves that the majority of
medications are not compatible with my genes. Taking these medications will
actively cause me harm and/or be ineffective.
I once again implore the Senate, please do not forget that we are individuals - not
just “the disabled”. Our individual circumstances should always be considered.
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.
Do not proceed with the removal of disabled individuals choice and control in any
matter, but especially in regards to treatment.
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.
This is not the same assessment that has been used for years. It is a brand new adaptation of that assessment that has not undergone any of the appropriate and thorough research/testing/trials required to ensure it is fit for (re)purpose.
People with disabilities do not fit neatly into predetermined algorithmic boxes. The limited testing this version of the I-CAN has undergone has already shown systemic issues - especially concerning specific disabilities.
Furthermore, the original assessments were used as guideline only. They were also only done by Allied Health practitioners - that held the appropriate qualifications and experience. It is not safe or appropriate for unqualified, unexperienced, non-Allied Health individuals to change a guidance template into an algorithmic final outcome assessment.
I am personally already in the middle of an ART case because the inadequately trained and unqualified planners at the NDIS disagreed/did not understand the Allied
Health specialists reports stating that my degenerative genetic disorder was permanent and degenerative in nature.
I ask that the Senate Joint Standing Committee refer to:
Submission Addendum Number 3
The I-CAN Tool
Embedding of Ableism within the NDIA
Prepared by: Peter Gregory B.Des. St., B.Occ.Thy., Grad. Cert. Comm. Dev. (Int)., Grad. Cert. Soc.
Admin.
Date: 14.11.2025
“A Disability Rights Analysis Contradiction of CRPD Human Rights
Foundations
The CRPD establishes the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and
be included in the community (Article 19), to enjoy autonomy and legal capacity on
an equal basis with others (Article 12), and to participate fully in all aspects of life
(Article 3). The I-CAN tool, by classifying individuals into predetermined categories
and then attaching budgetary allocations to these classifications, undermines these
rights. Instead of fostering self-determination, the tool constrains individuals by fitting
them into actuarial profiles that determine the types of support deemed “reasonable”
(Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2017). General Comment No.
1 on Article 12 of the CRPD explicitly rejects frameworks that substitute professional
judgment for the will and preferences of persons with disabilities (United Nations,
2014). The NDIA’s proposed reliance on I-CAN, therefore, is misaligned with its
human rights obligations under international law.“
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.
Require that any functional assessment tools be used strictly as a guidance
template, and are only administered by appropriately qualified Allied Health
professionals.
Require that Allied Health reports must be used in conjunction with any and all
functional capacity assessments.
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.
I like many others, do not even have informal supports to fall back on and community
supports are not safely or realistically accessible.
Recommendation: Require that no reductions to supports take effect until
replacement supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably
able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.
Require that any reductions to supports are done so on an individual case-by-case
basis to ensure they are demonstrably safe and accessible options for each
participant’s individual circumstances and functional capacity.
I would like to conclude this submission by asking what the Minister
and the Senate consider an acceptable rise in NDIS mortality rates?
Because the overwhelming consensus from participants, carers, support workers/coordinators and advocates is that by pushing ahead with cuts like these the NDIS is consistently, actively, directly and knowingly contributing to and/or causing profound harm to people with disabilities. This is factually supported by the NDIS own data on participant mortality rates from 2018-2023.
The mortality rate has already increased from 0.64% to 0.93% - meaning participants are 45% more likely to die each year than 5 years previously. The latest mortality data has not been officially released (despite existing) but FOI requests on this matter have been described as “horrifying”.
If similar mortality trends occurred in aged care or child protection, a royal commission would be inevitable. In the NDIS context of mortality, there is no inquiry.
The lack of an inquiry, the deliberate obfuscation of the “horrifying” increase in
mortality rates, and the proposed cuts further reinforce to people with disabilities that
not only so our very lives not matter, but also that our deaths are at the very best
inconsequential, and at the worst - intentional.
If this Bill is passed and the rates of easily preventable suicides and accidents that
cause injuries and/or death continue to exponentially rise, no-one responsible can
claim they did not know.
Please see the separately attached Annexure A for sources and corroborating
evidence.