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: 01/06/2026
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 a carer of 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 as I have very little time between working, looking
after my children, one of who is disabled and takes up much of my time.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30
days.
1
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.
It is already difficult enough to navigate the system as a parent with a disabled child
without things like eligibility and funding changes being made without us knowing.
We start planning for our next plan, getting reports and other documents together
months in advance of our plan ending. It would be extremely difficult to manage if the
goal posts keep changing and it will probably lead to my son not receiving the
support he needs because we don’t have the correct documentation together.
I also don’t feel comfortable that changes to such important legislation can be made
without the input of all stakeholders. I feel this could lead decisions being made that
are not in the best interests of disabled people and their families and instead be
made solely for financial reasons (for example).
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 2
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the
NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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.
My son’s disability is fluctuating in nature and there will be many reasons that we
may need to re-assess his plan. Restrictions on when we can ask for a
reassessment will likely lead to my son not having the supports he requires when he
requires them.
I spent months fighting for the funding my son required for his last plan, we went
through the ART process and ended up being given most of what we asked for
because it was determined that the planner got it wrong when she denied those
supports and my son actually did require them and was eligible to receive them. Of
the more than 6000 decision reviews that went to the ART from July last year, 65%
were changed by the ART. That means that the planners get plans wrong extremely
often, and to have no way to appeal those decisions or get them checked is going to
put participants at a big disadvantage and reduce the integrity of the NDIA.
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.
3
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the
NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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.
We fought hard to get my son the funding that he currently has because he NEEDS
it! If any of his supports were just suddenly taken away it would very much affect the
quality of his life. It would not only halt the progress he has been making but would
cause him to regress. The support team my son currently has have taken months to
build relationships with my son to get him to the point where he feels safe enough to
participate in therapies and engage with a support worker. If we lost funding
suddenly then all that relationship building would have to happen again before my
son could re-engage in the future.
If this power is granted to the minister without any checks and balances in place,
then it opens the NDIA up to corruption and it’s integrity will be ruined.
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.
4
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the
NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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.
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.
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
5
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
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.
My son’s disability for access to the NDIS is Autism, but he also been diagnosed with
ADHD and anxiety and many of these symptoms overlap and/or can make his
autism symptoms worse. I don’t think any automated tool is going to be able to
determine whether his reduced functional capacity is coming from ADHD or anxiety
and which solely are a result of his autism and the risk for error is extremely high.
Autism causes fluctuating capacity, which will not be able to be captured by this
automated system and so it will be likely that my son will not receive the support he
needs during times of low capacity.
A similar tool used in the aged care sector has recently been suspended due to it not
working to accurately determine the needs of the elderly. If any such tool is going to
be used it will need to be thoroughly tested with independent reviews and the
capacity to appeal the decisions it makes. Don’t forget about the harm that ROBO
Debt inflicted on vulnerable people in our community!!
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
6
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
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.
My son has just started to be able to gain some independence and access the
community safely due to receiving funding for social, civic and community
participation supports in his latest plan (which I had to fight hard to get for him). The
amount he receives is already the bare minimum he needs and it is still not enough
to be able to access the community on the same basis as his non-disabled peers.
Any reductions are going to absolutely negatively affect his quality of life. Arbitrarily
cutting the support across the board does not take into consideration individual
needs, some people may be able to replace 1:1 support worker support with other
supports, but some (like my son) will not. I don’t see any replacement “foundational”
supports being able to replace the support he receives from a 1:1 support worker.
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
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility