PWDA Template: 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
Email: communitY..affairs.sen@gRh.gov.au Date: , Q'!.:Q~~~ _______ .,,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 ama NDIS participant, family member and carer of an NDIS participant as well as a person with , disability ___________________________________________________________ _
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.
.J
1 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.
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOU
,––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––,
: Having too short a timeline rushes things through that can affect the quality of life of a :
: great many people in significant ways. I only just found out I could put my words in to :
: do with it and it's already almost closed to submissions. :‘––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––’
RECOMMENDATION
Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
1/7
2 Key Decisions Left to Ministerial Instruments, Not Law
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.
1 —————————————————————
: This is the opposite of transparency and actually scares me. I try and keep up with the: complicated world of the NDIS as it is, but if things are changing behind the scenes
: with no notice how is anybody meant to prepare for that? II‘––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––’
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.
2/7
3 Existing Participants Face Narrower Criteria and Fewer Rights to Challenge
Decisions
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).
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. ,––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––,
I If myself or my wife have our funding cut it would be disasterous. Some people can •Icome across as high functioning but behind the scenes need a great deal of help to be ,I
that way. If you can't challenge a decision that is made from incorrect information :
1 where does that leave you? We shouldn't have to gamble with quality of 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.
.)
3/7
4 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.
I understand the funds not carrying over if unspent, and it does make sense as some people will be accumulating large amounts of money that could be actually spread over people who need it. However, being able to reduce the amount of funding on a whim is not acceptable. These things need to be well planned or a lot of people are going to end up suffering from one uninformed decision. I —————————————————————
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.
.)
4/7
s Requirement to Exhaust Treatment Options Before Eligibility
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.
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.
Envirronmental factors must be acknowledged. Not every disability is the same, and many people have a lot of comorbidities which impact the severity of their listed disability. Also, what if treatment may be available but is impractical or unreachable? Does that person just exist in limbo then? This really seems like common sense to me … ’—————————————————————~
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.
..J
5/7
s Unvalidated Functional Capacity Assessment Tool Risks Misidentifying Need
The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). 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 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. ,––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––,
: If it is not tested and accurate it is not suitable. A single tool can never be accurate :
: enough in this situation without human input. There needs to be external factors taken :
: into account, not boxes checked off, to determine someones true level of functioning :‘––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––’
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.
.)
6/7
1 Supports Cut Before Replacement System Is Ready
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. 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. ,––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––,
: If our supports were cut before replacements were ready my wife and I would literally :
: end up starving. We do not funcion well enough to get to the shops on our own. We :
: would suffer, period. :‘––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––’
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.
7/7