Submission to the National Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
(Disability Community Affairs Legislation Committee)
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 01 June, 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, provider and family member of an NDIS participant / 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.
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 impacts me by as it takes time away from my day to day needs for my own support (I have recently been in hospital) and other Participant supports I provide as a community member with a hidden disability. I am a participant and I provide caregiving and community support both informally, and formally as a provider to a limited number of participants (< 3 incl young people and their family members) in a way that takes into account hidden disability, culture and research. I felt it is important to provide a submission to this inquiry as this is not enough time to address the alarming and devestating flow-on effects the National Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, will have on my ecosystem and community.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days. 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 my circumstances, these affect me directly and will impact my already limited and strained current level of functioning. I fear this change will lead to decisions continuing to be made in a way that strips Australians living with disability of their rights for due process for appeal. A lot of effort has gone into co-design on how to support scheme sustainability and integrity already and these have been disregarded. This is deeply concerning. I have community members in hospital and 1) this is cost-shifting to other areas of government 2) impacting further the contraventions to the UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). We are moving further away from a just and fair system.
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.
I do not have time or support to submit how this affects me personally. I have already felt the direct impacts of this for myself and members of the physical and hidden disability communities.
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.
I have already felt the direct impacts of this for myself and members of the physical and hidden disability communities.
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.
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.
I do not have time or support to submit how this affects me personally. I have already felt the direct impacts of this for myself and members of the physical and hidden disability communities. I and the participants I support are not getting culturally appropriate care that captures our contexts. Individual contexts (environments) impact functioning under the social model of disability.
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.
I do not have time or support to submit how this affects me personally. I have already felt the direct impacts of this for myself and members of the physical and hidden disability communities. I and the participants I support are not getting culturally appropriate care that captures our contexts. Individual contexts (environments) impact functioning under the social model of disability.
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.
We support reform that works with the disability community. The proposed Bill does not safeguard and gives the Minister further overreach and power to target families and communities and specific cohorts. This would be discrimination.
On autism specifically (nevermind seeing me as whole person): there is a National Autism Strategy 2025-2031 that takes into account the intersectionality within a very
diverse population - the proposed changes are at the cost of the potential of maximising capacity, independence and dignity for a meaningful life Australians living with disability. It invites judgement without looking at what is actually happening or meeting the people for whom NDIS plans will be designed for. The ICAN is not a suitable assessment tool to reflect the diversity of the experience of many people with disabilities, and I would invite the ALP government to listen to the peak-bodies for Allied Health as experts in this area and Senator Steel-John, who has a lived experience of disability.