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 Date: 10 July 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 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 fact that the Minister and Parliament have gone against their own Australian Government Policy suggests that they had no intention in consulting with the disability community – participants, family, carers, healthcare professionals, and disability service providers. It was by chance the other day that I found out about the Inquiry submissions re-opening. I am passionate about not only advocating for myself, but for all people living with disabilities.
I find it laughable that this Amendment Bill details changes to the NDIS that are to occur in
the future even though most of these changes have already been implemented. This
complete lack of transparency is impacting participants such as myself, and their family,
carers, and service providers. Several months ago, I was shocked when I got an email
from my plan manager saying my claim for meal preparation and delivery was declined as
it was no longer in my plan. This is just one example. All I can say to the Minister and
Parliament is “be transparent with your fellow Australians”. When it comes to the NDIS, you cannot be playing around with vulnerable people’s wellbeing. It is not just the financial, but more their physical and emotional wellbeing.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30
days. Read/listen to what the disability community has to say.
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.
For me personally, this has already occurred. I just received my new plan at the end of June 2026 and the NDIA has not explained why crucial services/supports including psychology and support co-ordination have been removed; and support worker hours have been significantly reduced. It was simply that I “did not meet their criteria”. It sounds like the Government think it is okay to leave participants out in the cold by not considering how their actions could impact these people health-wise and financially. In fact, cutting NDIS supports is likely to have a domino effect on other government budgets including hospitals, education, and social services. This would end up costing the Government more in the long run.
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.
How can a computer make decisions about what a participant requires to function and survive everyday? It is ludicrous! This sounds like another Robodebt scandal in the making. The Bill does state that “human delegates” will be able to override automated decisions, but who are these NDIA delegates? Based off the new plan I just received (after providing so much evidence with recommendations), I am confident these delegates have no training in healthcare or the disability sector. There are reasons why qualified health professionals such as occupational therapists write recommendations – they understand how the participant’s disabilities affects them every day and what they require to help them function. I sent an email to the NDIA Planner (the same day I received my new plan) to express my concerns but got an automated email stating that my case has been closed. It is extremely disrespectful how the NDIA thinks they know what each individual participant
Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories
The issue: 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.
Again, there is no respect for participants here. Every human-being is unique and has unique needs. I live with functional neurological disorder (FND) – a very complex medical condition that affects every system of the human body. The symptoms I experience, the way it effects my life is very different to another person with FND. I am the only expert in how this condition impacts me. So, I know where I need to direct my supports/services and what equipment aids I require to help me function. No one else can make that decision for me.
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 Can the NDIA Not View Participants as a Whole Person?:
There are multiple factors that impact an individual’s daily experiences whether they have a disability or not. The bio- psycho-social model explains how if one of these factors is impacted or removed it results in a downward spiral for that individual. Again, the plan I recently received has removed vital supports, which were originally there to help me interact with my environment. It is sad to think the Government do not care if people with disabilities become more isolated.
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 Needs.
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
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
appropriate for people with disability of cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
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.
Using the unvalidated I-CAN assessment tool would affect me greatly (as it would anyone living with a disability). Mainly, you cannot assess just one impairment. For me, living with FND does not simply cause one impairment. It affects every aspect of my life – my physical health, psychological health, social wellbeing, environment, and employment and financial stability. 24/7 pain, extreme fatigue, and seizures and tremors means I require assistance with toileting and showering. This is why a holistic approach to assessment is vital.
Additionally, the Minister and NDIA must understand that functional capacity assessments cannot be conducted by office clerks who did a quick course in “I-CAN Assessment for Dummies”. A thorough assessment must be conducted by qualified health professionals (i.e., occupational therapists). They are the ones who studied at university for four years, because they actually want to help people live an autonomous life.
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 appropriate for people with disability of cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
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 reason why I am able to connect with community, family and friends and develop life skills such as learning to cook a meal is because I could regularly access supports and services including physiotherapy, psychology, and support workers. Reducing or removing supports like these without a replacement system is not helping that person work towards independence, which I thought was the original purpose of the NDIS.
I believe the Minister here is forgetting that disabilities not only affect the individual, but also affects the people who love them. For example, elderly parents should be allowed to focus on themselves – take care of their own health, enjoy their retirement. More importantly, people with disabilities generally want to be as independent as possible. Give participants the opportunity to continue learning the skills to manage their health conditions, return to work, and feel confident in their new abilities.
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.
I want to finish off by emphasising that I hope the Minister and Parliament come to their senses and realise that we (people with disabilities) deserve to have a good quality of life. We deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We deserve to be independent, interact with our community, and feel seen and safe in our environment. People with disabilities deserve to live the life they want to live.