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: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Note: I have used a template produced by People With Disability Australia to help with my submission, but many of the words are my own and I have no affiliation with this organisation.

Confidential: I am happy for my submission to be published on the internet, but please withhold my name.

Date: 28 May 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, on the scheme for autism level 2. I have co-occurring conditions that are not currently listed on the NDIS. After the release of the Future Generations Bill, I am frightened of being removed from the NDIS and left with no support at all.

This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds. The consequences for participants, 1

Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency

The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks and three days, 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.

I have struggled to respond by the deadline due to fatigue, brain fog and executive functioning problems. I have not had the time to respond the way I really want to, but felt it was important to have a say.

Recommendation: I would like to see the consultation period extended for a best practice minimum of 30 days at least, and preferably longer.

I would also like to see the Senate Inquiry advertised widely. There could be many people who would like to have a say, but have not heard that the inquiry is underway.

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.

Page 3

I believe this gives the Minister far too much power over the lives of NDIS

participants, with no oversight to constrain those powers. For me, it would add a

further element of uncertainty to my plan that would make it hard to plan for the

future.

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 an autistic participant, I am worried that I could be removed from the NDIS, or at

the very least lose supports. Having no review rights of these decisions would be

horrible.

I am also concerned that if I am removed, there will be no suitable alternative supports available for me. I live in Queensland where the government has so far

                                                               3

• refused to sign up for the Thriving Kids initiative. I can’t see an easy path for them to
• commit to funding all the supports that will be required for anyone being shifted off
• the NDIS.

I also highlight the word I used: “suitable”. I am scared that any so-called foundational supports will:

a) Reduce the control I have over who comes to my house. I need to trust
  anyone who enters my private space.

b) Be provided in a group setting, which would be entirely inappropriate for me.

c) Come with a co-payment that I cannot afford.

d) Not let me continue with my current support team, which i have spent years
    learning to trust and work with comfortably. It took time and energy to
    construct this team, and I'm afraid I will lose them.

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 another point that highlights the excessive power given to the Minister

through this Bill. I am concerned that I could lose funding without warning.

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.

This proposal is alarming to me. I am on a low income and live in a rural town. It can be very difficult to access treatment where I live. Depending on the treatment required, waiting lists in the public system can be years long. There may be no relevant specialist or allied health professional in the area at all. Accessing specialists and allied health professionals privately is often prohibitively expensive. Some disciplines are in such short supply they are not taking on new patients. Between my low income, disability and health conditions, I am unable to travel far or afford expensive treatments. I am also concerned about what would count as “appropriate” treatment. Who decides what is appropriate? What if it’s not

• appropriate for that specific participant? I feel the requirement to complete all
• appropriate treatments would be a barrier to the NDIS for a number of different
• groups, which would only enforce inequality in Australian society.

Additionally, like many on the NDIS for autism, I have a number of co-occurring conditions. These conditions interact with and exacerbate each other, including my autism. It would be incredibly difficult to tease out what causes what. How does the NDIA determine that? If I can no longer get all the supports I need through NDIS, will I be able to get them somewhere else?

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.

Continue to assess a participant or an applicant with a whole-of-person approach.

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.

I am concerned that this will be the case for me. There is worry in the autism community that the I-CAN may not be suitable for capturing autistic support needs and the autistic experience. For example, many autistic people mask, which means they could underplay their struggles without even realising they are doing it, which is definitely a problem i have.

The I-CAN appears to be about three to four hours long, far too much for many disabled people to complete in one sitting, including myself. There appears to an expectation for a person to speak throughout the assessment. Again, this does not account for people who need alternative forms of communication. While I can speak, i struggle to express myself out loud in high-stakes, high-pressure situations. Add the masking into the equation, and I would not be able to explain my needs accurately. I would prefer to be able to respond in writing at my own pace where I feel I need to.

I am not clear whether and how reports from occupational therapists, speech therapists, psychologists, et cetera would be considered in this process. They should be, so that there is independent input into the assessment from experts who are familiar with the participant.

NDIA staff administering the I-CAN should have appropriate qualifications, training and experience before being allowed to assess participants, including training in the disability or disabilities they are assessing.

From my understanding, when the I-CAN is finished, the answers are fed into an algorithm and a plan is produced. There is no further human input and no possibility of review apart from being sent back to be reassessed by the same I-CAN that did not produce an appropriate plan to begin with. If this is the case, I find it deeply worrying that there is no right to review by a human.

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 ddisability.

There should be accommodations during the I-CAN assessment: for example,

• allowing participants to use their preferred form of communication,
• completing the assessment in several short sessions, and
• allowing participants to choose whether it’s done by online video call, phone, in-person or other method. A support person of the participant’s choice should be allowed. Reports from professionals should be take into account, and assessments should only be conducted by suitably qualified people.

Any automation in the NDIS, whether it’s the I-CAN or something else, needs safeguards to protect participants and applicants from perverse decisions.

Automation should be a means to an end, an assistant to decisions, not an end in itself.

Supports cut before replacement system is ready

The issue:

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 have written a little about this category earlier in the submission, however I would
• also like to highlight that I have no family or friends who can replace my NDIS
• supports, should they be reduced or removed altogether. Without funding for social
• and community supports, I might struggle to get to my medical appointments.

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.

Conclusion The Bill feels like it has been written by people who have no lived experience of disability. It has left the 760,000 NDIS participants, and their families and carers, in a state of uncertainty and potentially outright fear. Personally, I am exhausted, overwhelmed, scared and trying not to succumb to helplessness. Because after years of putting in submissions to the National Autism Strategy, answering NDIS surveys and participating in consultations, only to be ignored, it feels like this Bill will pass as written no matter what. If passed, it is quite likely to impact certain groups disproportionately and negatively, including but not limited to: women (who tend to have chronic conditions that are harder to define and take on more caring responsibilities than men), those in regional, rural and remote areas, certain disabilities (such as ME/CFS, autism, Down’s syndrome, psychosocial, and fluctuating conditions), the LGBTQIA+ community, and First Nations. There is another frightening effect of this Bill. Since the debate around NDIS funding began, particularly over the last couple of months, I have noticed an alarming increase in hateful commentary on social media directed at disabled people

including late-diagnosed autistic people like myself. I have seen people say that

anyone removed from the NDIS is a fraud, which is entirely incorrect.

The narrative of fraud and rorting spun by certain politicians and sections of the

media has created an atmosphere where disabled people are now scapegoats and

targets of contempt. I have never felt so unsafe and I feel like the public’s willingness

to learn about, accept and accommodate disabilities may have been set back by

years.

I acknowledge that the NDIS has problems, but that is, by and large, not the fault of

participants. I feel like this Bill puts the burden of cost-cutting on participants rather

than reducing administrative bloat, to name one example. There are plenty of ways

to rein in costs without removing people from the scheme or making blanket cuts to

funding. Asking participants for suggestions would be a good start.

My NDIS package, while not perfect, has helped me immensely. I don’t know where I

would be without it. I am a relatively recent NDIS participant and was planning to use

my supports as scaffolding to plan for my future, which I have not been able to do for

some time. Now I don’t know what will happen.

The Bill changes the spirit of the NDIS from one of choice and control for the

participant to one of choice and control for the Minister.

I do not want to see the Bill passed in its current form. Minister Butler and the

Australian Labor Party must consult widely with and co-design the legislation with

disabled people.

And I ask you to please listen to me and other disabled Australians who rely on the

NDIS. Not to live lives of luxury, but just to live.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

                                                            10

**An NDIS participant.

11**