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

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 27.05.2026

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 would like 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 would impact me in the ways outlined below:

Shorter timelines for NDIS amendment bills such as the truncated 2026 Senate inquiry window cause accessibility issues because they prevent the disability community from fully understanding complex, 109-page legislation and deny advocates meaningful time to consult, leaving vulnerable participants exposed to psychological harm and unstable support, in some cases even feeling suicidal because of extreme uncertainty about what may happen.

Rushed timelines create specific, compounding barriers for NDIS participants that must be taken into serious consideration:

• Information Barriers: Complex legislative drafting requires translation into Easy English, Auslan, and other accessible formats. Compressed timelines mean these materials are often not ready in time, leaving people with cognitive or intellectual disabilities unable to comprehend how their funding might change.

• Lack of Consultation: Advocacy groups have warned that rushing major reforms like new functional capacity assessments and tighter reassessment criteria—shuts out those with lived experience, increasing the risk of unworkable policy that deepens existing accessibility barriers.

• Participant Anxiety: Many participants rely entirely on NDIS supports just to remain in their homes or stay alive. The instability of rushed, opaque reforms causes severe anxiety and psychological distress.

• Systemic Unreainess: Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) frequently highlight that neither the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) nor service providers can safely implement major overhauls within short turnaround windows

• Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days or longer.

• 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.

The proposed amendment to the bill is providing so much uncertainty it’s really heightening my anxiety levels because it seems so incredibly rushed, not participant centred at all and way too extreme, common sense must prevail.

• 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

How this affects existing NDIS participants

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.

If NDIS participants were faced with narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions that instantly takes away our rights to appeal decisions regarding our plans not the ‘governments plans’ which could have a catastrophic effect on our daily lives

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.

It would have dire effects on my life causing isolation, loneliness, uncertainty and super importantly taking away choice and control.

• 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.

The NDIS must always consider every aspect of the participant and their lives that is the only and genuine way to understand what supports they really need, given some participants have multiple and complex disabilities therefore cannot and must not ever be accessed against a single eligible impairment. They must assess every participant as an individual and look at all their needs versus just one.

• 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.

Invalidated 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:

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 persons 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.

Conducting a thorough assessment of participants every need is super critical to capture the full extent of the participants disability/disabilities and the amount of funding they actually need just to live every day, live in the community, work, study, this should be a non-negotiable expectation that is done out of respect to the participant if nothing else

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

Page 7

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.

If the NDIS took away or limited funding for social, civic and community participation it would have a major impact on my life causing me to be isolated from family and friends, generally isolated, segregated from society, it would affect my ability to feel normal, accepted, understood and worthy, This funding has been life changing for me and is so critical that it remains the way it’s always been. Stop punishing the participant by reducing these vital supports which make such a huge difference to their lives.

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.