Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 29/05/26
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 provider, working in the community within South Australia.
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.
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.
I have noticed it is difficult to accurately capture the impacts of a disability through standardised assessments and the needs of the individual often fluctuate day to day, as is the nature of disability. I have found that sweeping statements about disability and its impact on daily life, are not useful nor reflective of what I see as a practitioner and nor do they capture the complicated family lives of people who care for others with a disability. I have been working with family members and individuals with a disability who are exceptionally stressed about the changes and already feel overwhelmed with the possibility of changes. In fact, I wrote a paper in 2024 outlining what families and adults with an intellectual disability found most difficult about the NDIS and a consistent theme was managing bureaucracy and the ever changing goal posts. The proposed sweeping changes have only added to this stress and I see adult clients who have now been put into acute mental health care because of their anxiety around the NDIS changes.
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.
As stated above, clients have been placed into acute mental health care to manage the anxiety they feel about these changes. This puts pressure on the already overworked mental health system, and shifting stress between services does not address the underlying needs that put the stressors there in the first place. I have also had clients ask about VAD in the wake of their anxiety around these proposed changes. I feel individuals deserve the right to challenge their funding if it does not reflect the reality of their daily life. There should be open and honest communication between both the NDIS and participants to reduce the anxiety and also allow there to be effective outcomes (as right now it is a very us VS them mentality). We also know that disability needs change over time and funding needs to be reflective of that and allow for flexibility.
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 no way captures the nuances of why people have not used their funding. This comes down to many factors like waitlists, injury, unsuitable services within the area (particularly in rural regions), services saying no to clients who are deemed “too complex”, illness, degenerative disabilities and unplanned life emergencies (e.g. parents or carers becoming unwell). If funding is cut with no warning this significantly affects the life of individuals and their families. Some parents will have to quit their jobs (and therefore not contribute to the tax system and economy), there will likely be a rise in poor mental health for carers (Who rely on formal supports, particularly with individuals who engage in physical aggression as part of their disability). Parents and carers who are at burnout point are likely to suffer home breakdowns and this will lead to children being placed in care.
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.
How are these appropriate treatment measures defined and what is the evidence to support this. I am curious how parents are meant to know, as many doctors and medical professionals (often the first step) are not as knowledgeable in what is useful to treat these disabilities. Also how will this be funded for families in the context of continued rising costs of living? These are expensive endeavours and medicare does not begin to cover this cost for families who will have to chose between food and care for their children. Looking at people as a single disability, when there are multiple, is not appropriate nor holistic in care. You cannot separate needs of one disability from another as they often overlap and have interconnected factors.
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 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.
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 dismantlement of the services that were previously in place (e.g. Child and Youth Health, Disability SA) was so detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the NDIS scheme. If these services remained in place while the scheme was rolled out, we would likely not be seeing the overuse of the system we are now. We previously had a step
down system and maintaining this would have been beneficial. To step people down without anything in place is not only unsuitable but also dangerous to many families. I have seen first hand the stress this has had on individuals and families, and there is an emerging sense of panic about what they will do in the interim. There is safety in stepping down to services once established, as this reduces any residual impact on other health services. My expectations is without a step down service the emergency rooms will become overwhelmed by this cohort and they are neither a suitable or long term solution to meeting this need. There is no sense in moving stress between different governmental departments when appropriate planning would support this to not happen.
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.